RMweb Premium 65179 Posted October 5, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 5, 2020 I'd go with epoxy rather than superglue Justin. CA isn't conductive in the absence of a conductive filler, but it's not the nicest stuff if heated. Simon 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin1985 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 39 minutes ago, 65179 said: I'd go with epoxy rather than superglue Justin. CA isn't conductive in the absence of a conductive filler, but it's not the nicest stuff if heated. Simon Thanks Simon - yes good idea. I had thought CA for ease of removing the motor if I ever need to again, but went with a thin bead of epoxy, as you suggest. Justin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 65179 Posted October 5, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) A good tap in the right place and an epoxy bond can be broken easily enough. I've had to do it more often than I'd like when trying to get coreless motors nice and straight on a tender chassis. Simon Edited October 5, 2020 by 65179 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin1985 Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 I'm sure I saw some discussion about turnout blade joggles in 2mm recently, but I can't find it again now. I seem to remember it was concluded they're not often prototypical. However I've always ended up using them so far, as it seems the only way to avoid wheels hitting the end of the blade. Does that mean I've never filed my blades thin enough? Justin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2mm Andy Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 58 minutes ago, justin1985 said: I'm sure I saw some discussion about turnout blade joggles in 2mm recently, but I can't find it again now. I seem to remember it was concluded they're not often prototypical. However I've always ended up using them so far, as it seems the only way to avoid wheels hitting the end of the blade. Does that mean I've never filed my blades thin enough? Justin The discussion re. joggles was on the 2mm Virtual Area group - look at the messages on/around 21st September. Andy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richbrummitt Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 What would be a sensible adhesive for our SRBP (copper clad) sleepering to paper for a permanent bond? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Exile Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 12 hours ago, justin1985 said: I'm sure I saw some discussion about turnout blade joggles in 2mm recently, but I can't find it again now. I seem to remember it was concluded they're not often prototypical. However I've always ended up using them so far, as it seems the only way to avoid wheels hitting the end of the blade. Does that mean I've never filed my blades thin enough? Justin There's also reference to/discussion of joggles in the Track book (Ch 5) and methods to shaping them and the blades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian Morgan Posted October 9, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 9, 2020 11 hours ago, richbrummitt said: What would be a sensible adhesive for our SRBP (copper clad) sleepering to paper for a permanent bond? I have found double-sided sticky tape to be pretty permanent unless cut into very narrow strips 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richbrummitt Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 23 minutes ago, Ian Morgan said: I have found double-sided sticky tape to be pretty permanent unless cut into very narrow strips Did you have any issues with ballasting (and the sticking of) subsequently? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 2 hours ago, richbrummitt said: Did you have any issues with ballasting (and the sticking of) subsequently? On Connerburn I laid the track (plain rail on chairplates on pcb sleepers) on 1" wide double sided tape and then sprinkled on coarse sand as ballast. It's still secure 50 years on! (photo taken in 2009) Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, justin1985 said: Does that mean I've never filed my blades thin enough? Switches need to be filed to pretty much a knife edge. Something I've never seen mentioned (IIRC), though, is making sure that when you fit the switch the tip doesn't end up producing a slight tightening of the gauge. I put a set in the curved stock rail and fit the first switch into that, placing a button gauge at the tip of the switch between it and the opposite stock rail. I then lay the second switch so that its tip is in line with, and certainly no further from the crossing than, the first. In theory the taper on the flange of the wheel should guide it over the tip of the switch by moving the wheel slightly away from the stock rail, but if the flange of the opposite wheel is hard against the other stock rail, this can't happen. If your switch tip is too thick, then you can reduce it by gently rubbing its inside face with a fine file while it is hard against the stock rail. Only file in a 'trailing' direction and slightly chamfer the top inside edge. This is probably heresy, in which case I would ask Your Honour to take multiple other such offences into account! Jim Edited October 9, 2020 by Caley Jim 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 1 minute ago, Caley Jim said: Switches need to be filed to pretty much a knife edge. Something I've never seen mentioned (IIRC), though, is making sure that when you fit the switch the tip doesn't end up producing a slight tightening of the gauge. I put a set in the curved stock rail and fit the first switch into that, placing a button gauge at the tip of the switch between it and the opposite stock rail. I then lay the second switch so that its tip is in line with, and certainly no further from the crossing than, the first. In theory the taper on the flange of the wheel should guide it over the tip of the switch by moving the wheel slightly away from the stock rail, but if the flange of the opposite wheel is hard against the other stock rail, this can't happen. If your switch tip is too thick, then you can reduce it by gently rubbing its inside face with a fine file while it is hard against the stock rail. Only file in a 'trailing' direction and slightly chamfer the top inside edge. This is probably heresy, in which case I would ask Your Honour to take multiple other such offences into account! Jim I was looking (I don't know where or when) at a modern FB switch and it had a chamfer on the top edge. The don't have to be knife-edge at the bottom. Chris 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
£1.38 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Chris Higgs said: I was looking (I don't know where or when) at a modern FB switch and it had a chamfer on the top edge. The don't have to be knife-edge at the bottom. Chris That's my theory too. Both the flange and the tyre are tapered on the wheels, so only a very small part of the wheel is ever in contact with the rail. I file the end of my point blades down to a thinnish profile, but still slightly blunt, before fixing them in place. Only then, do I file a gentle taper to the top of the tips of the point blades, getting them to merge with the top of the stock rail. That should be all you need for smooth running. The bottom of the point blade has no impact at all on the running of trains, so can be left relatively blunt. Here are some diagrams on Templot to illustrate what needs to be filed away https://85a.co.uk/forum/view_post.php?post_id=19573 Edited October 9, 2020 by £1.38 add 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin1985 Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 20 hours ago, Caley Jim said: Switches need to be filed to pretty much a knife edge. Something I've never seen mentioned (IIRC), though, is making sure that when you fit the switch the tip doesn't end up producing a slight tightening of the gauge. I put a set in the curved stock rail and fit the first switch into that, placing a button gauge at the tip of the switch between it and the opposite stock rail. I then lay the second switch so that its tip is in line with, and certainly no further from the crossing than, the first. 12 hours ago, £1.38 said: Here are some diagrams on Templot to illustrate what needs to be filed away https://85a.co.uk/forum/view_post.php?post_id=19573 Many thanks for the tips chaps, really appreciated! I'm always learning with 2mm! Putting a set (bend) into the switch rail to put the planed section back into alignment had completely passed me by, but makes a lot of sense when you think about it! So far I've only got as far as the vee and the straight stock rail. I did put a very slight joggle into the stock rail - using the slot in single etch thickness method from the Track book, but then largely flattened back out again, so it's very subtle indeed. I'll give the switch rails that I've prepared a bit more attention to thin them down further. J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted October 10, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2020 If you chamfer the top leading corner of the switch blade at 45degrees, so it sort of rounds off a bit, this helps to ‘lead’ the root radius of the wheel tyre into the switch. N gauge wheels with their NMRA RP25 curvy profile have less problems here because of the large root radius which keeps the bulk of the flange well away from the side of the rail. The 2FS profile by comparison has little in the way of a root radius, almost a sharp corner angle, so it’s easier for the bulk of the flange to run up against and catch the rail side/front edge. Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 1 hour ago, justin1985 said: Putting a set (bend) into the switch rail to put the planed section back into alignment had completely passed me by, but makes a lot of sense when you think about it! Read my post again, @justin1985. The set is in the curved stock rail, NOT the switch. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin1985 Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 4 hours ago, Caley Jim said: Read my post again, @justin1985. The set is in the curved stock rail, NOT the switch. Jim Yup, understood Jim. It was the Templot forum post linked by @£1.38 advocated putting a slight set into the blade itself: "Put a set (that's a bend to you and me) in the rail at the planing length so that the end of the rail is aligned where the running face was (the picture should make this clearer). This location of this set is important since this affects the switch angle." [My emphasis] I'm sure this is written with larger scales in mind, but the principle sounds sensible? J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 That's not something I've seen advocated before so have never used. You should be able to make it out in this photo on the top stock rail of the turnout on the right. My switches are all loose heel, so a set in them wouldn't be possible. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium nick_bastable Posted October 10, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Caley Jim said: That's not something I've seen advocated before so have never used. You should be able to make it out in this photo on the top stock rail of the turnout on the right. My switches are all loose heel, so a set in them wouldn't be possible. Jim is that a Barry slip gone north ? Nick B Edited October 10, 2020 by nick_bastable 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 2 hours ago, nick_bastable said: is that a Barry slip gone north ? Ha! Ha! No! It's two turnouts dancing toe to toe! Jim 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted October 10, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2020 On 08/10/2020 at 22:29, justin1985 said: I'm sure I saw some discussion about turnout blade joggles in 2mm recently, but I can't find it again now. I seem to remember it was concluded they're not often prototypical. However I've always ended up using them so far, as it seems the only way to avoid wheels hitting the end of the blade. Does that mean I've never filed my blades thin enough? Justin I did quite a bit of the posting about them on the VAG I could forward them if I have your email. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted October 10, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2020 5 hours ago, justin1985 said: Yup, understood Jim. It was the Templot forum post linked by @£1.38 advocated putting a slight set into the blade itself: "Put a set (that's a bend to you and me) in the rail at the planing length so that the end of the rail is aligned where the running face was (the picture should make this clearer). This location of this set is important since this affects the switch angle." [My emphasis] I'm sure this is written with larger scales in mind, but the principle sounds sensible? J That very much sounds to me as though the blade has been incorrectly filed. A simple way to remember is 9ft or A switch blades file at 1/24 12ft or B blades file at 1/32 15ft or C blades files at 1/40. The code 40 rail is 0.5mm head width so for a B blade mark 16mm from the tip and file an even taper from the mark to the tip. On the straight stock rail side the blade should meet with the planned taper snuggly against the stock rail for the whole taper. On the curved stock rail you put a set in at the same angle and the curve then starts the same distance from the set (i.e 16mm for a B switch. This of course is a council of perfection and you may not get it as accurate as you would like. However a blade that just touches at the tip will be wrong and may be tight to gauge just after the tip. Obviously a blade where the tip isn't touching is even more wrong. Don 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
£1.38 Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 12 hours ago, Donw said: That very much sounds to me as though the blade has been incorrectly filed. A simple way to remember is 9ft or A switch blades file at 1/24 12ft or B blades file at 1/32 15ft or C blades files at 1/40. The code 40 rail is 0.5mm head width so for a B blade mark 16mm from the tip and file an even taper from the mark to the tip. On the straight stock rail side the blade should meet with the planned taper snuggly against the stock rail for the whole taper. On the curved stock rail you put a set in at the same angle and the curve then starts the same distance from the set (i.e 16mm for a B switch. This of course is a council of perfection and you may not get it as accurate as you would like. However a blade that just touches at the tip will be wrong and may be tight to gauge just after the tip. Obviously a blade where the tip isn't touching is even more wrong. Don Jim and Don, have a proper look at the link I gave. The impression I get is that you are misunderstanding the concept. What is described there is a pretty common way of doing things, even in the likes of S7 and P4. It ensures that the blades fit snugly against the stock rails just like the prototype - and in my experience is an excellent way of doing things. https://85a.co.uk/forum/view_post.php?post_id=19573 Not quite the same for modern times, where curved planing of point blades is now the norm. IIRC that only happened in the UK from the early 1960s though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted October 11, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) I’m afraid I don’t see the need or desire for this. If the blade is planed at the correct deflection angle it should sit up against the stock rail with the closure rail sitting in the right place. Otherwise either the latter won’t be in the correct position or there will be a kink. Seems odd to me so I have to wonder what I am missing/failing to understand. Izzy Edited October 11, 2020 by Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie2mil Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I don’t think you’re missing anything, Izzy. The Templot link explains how the modern prototype does it, which is impractical in 2FS. Keep it simple is my advice: a set to the planing angle in the curved stock rail, a 5-thou jiggle in the straight stock rail, and “plane” the switch blade straight and vertically to the switch angle, aiming for 0.1 - 0.125mm at the very tip. Sometimes I just can’t get it to sit as smoothly against the stock rail as it should - and that is the only time I would put a file along the top inside corner of the switch - just until it’s all smooth and to gauge. Laurie Adams 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now