Jump to content
 

Hayfields turnout workbench


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I built a single slip with a 5 angle. It was the first slip or crossing I had built. It worked fine which surprised me. The bullhead rail was flexible enough to do without joints.  I soldered the moving rails in the centre 3 timber’s (or 5 ? I can check if you want). I let the other plastic chairs float. Their movement is not very noticeable. The passage of stock through it is a definite improvement over the similar rtr option. I think mostly as the blades are longer as they get closer to the common crossing than on the commercial product. Though the angle is fractionally less steep too.


I suspect a double will be more difficult though, mostly because of the need to insulate between the blade tips. I have not built a double yet.

 

Take your time, and good luck.

Edited by Dominion
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

John (and other readers), I need to build a 1 in 5 double slip in 00 for a particular location on my layout. I'm thinking of using the SMP "template" as a starting point. To a first approximation, the slip roads are about 30" radius. I'm looking at flexible switches rather than jointed.

 

Have you or anyone else built such a beast and, if so, have you any comments or suggestions (apart from "don't")?

 

Thanks.

 

According to Templot 1-6 is the smallest size recommended, I have a feeling when you get down to these sizes an outside slip is the way to go, Templot gives the reason that its both non prototypical plus the radii may be too sharp

 

As for flexible switches I have 2 methods

 

1)   Is to use Pexo plastic rail joiners

 

2)   Is to use Exactoscale brass ( H shaped) fishplates, soldered to the curved centre sections, the switch blade is held in place by the tiebar. I was shown this method at a show demonstration, Norman Solomon?  Works extremely well. I always use this method for double slips, as 4 switch blades on a tiebar becomes very stiff

 

If not making it totally in copperclad I would use what I call a composite method. I would work out the strategic areas and use copperclad timbers with the rails lifted up with 0.6mm copperclad risers (both pre gapped and filled) once all works cut plastic chairs in half and fit to the remaining plastic timbers

 

I would be a bit wary of SMP plans, use a Templot plan far more accurate

 

What stock will be using it ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks John.

 

36 minutes ago, hayfield said:

According to Templot 1-6 is the smallest size recommended, I have a feeling when you get down to these sizes an outside slip is the way to go, Templot gives the reason that its both non prototypical plus the radii may be too sharp

I've had a quick look at an outside slip and the problem is the increased length. I think it would need about 60" radius on the slip roads and that would extend the distance between the toes too much - I'm working with a very tight constraint on length. I think the SMP plan has a radius of about 30", which is the minimum I use on the rest of the layout (plain track and A5 points).

 

38 minutes ago, hayfield said:

As for flexible switches I have 2 methods

 

1)   Is to use Pexo plastic rail joiners

 

2)   Is to use Exactoscale brass ( H shaped) fishplates, soldered to the curved centre sections, the switch blade is held in place by the tiebar. I was shown this method at a show demonstration, Norman Solomon?  Works extremely well. I always use this method for double slips, as 4 switch blades on a tiebar becomes very stiff

I too use "Norman Solomon" pins to fix the blades to the tiebars. You're right about four blades on a single tiebar and it's also hard to get all the blades to fit up properly. Consequently, for double slips I use two tiebars at each end, with one pair of blades attached to each. They're operated by a single motor through an equalising lever arrangement.

 

41 minutes ago, hayfield said:

If not making it totally in copperclad I would use what I call a composite method. I would work out the strategic areas and use copperclad timbers with the rails lifted up with 0.6mm copperclad risers (both pre gapped and filled) once all works cut plastic chairs in half and fit to the remaining plastic timbers

It will be copperclad throughout and as it's going to be in an off-stage storage yard appearance (i.e. chairs, etc.) won't matter.

 

42 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I would be a bit wary of SMP plans, use a Templot plan far more accurate

Yes, that why I asked the question! From what you said at the top, can Templot actually generate a 1 in 5?

 

43 minutes ago, hayfield said:

What stock will be using it ?

Everything except tender locos. The longest wheelbase will be the Hornby 42xx 2-8-0Ts. They run fine through my existing 1 in 6 double slips and 1 in 5 single slips.

 

Lots of food for thought - thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
34 minutes ago, hayfield said:

According to Templot 1-6 is the smallest size recommended, I have a feeling when you get down to these sizes an outside slip is the way to go, Templot gives the reason that its both non prototypical plus the radii may be too sharp

 

A 1:5 double-slip in 00-BF is doable for industrial sidings. Essentially it is a copy of the Peco double-slip:

 

00_5_dslip1.png.5fc2c62f57035f10f2ab6caf0eae97e6.png

 

00_5_dslip2.png.d74152b63af6b94f8bac84c4523f3087.png

 

The radius in the slip roads is 24.7". Set angles in the stock rails are 1:24 (as "A" switches). The timbering needs some tidying up.

 

The big problem as will all short 00 slips is finding space for and fitting the tiny remaining bit of the K-crossing check rail, as above.

 

For this very short slip in 00 it might be possible to omit the K-crossing check rails without causing any running problems, which would make building it very much easier. It would need some experiments with the actual rolling stock and location.

 

The proper prototype answer at 1:5 is an outside slip, which would look better and run better, but needs more space.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

A 1:5 double-slip in 00-BF is doable for industrial sidings. Essentially it is a copy of the Peco double-slip:

 

00_5_dslip1.png.5fc2c62f57035f10f2ab6caf0eae97e6.png

 

00_5_dslip2.png.d74152b63af6b94f8bac84c4523f3087.png

 

The radius in the slip roads is 24.7". Set angles in the stock rails are 1:24 (as "A" switches). The timbering needs some tidying up.

 

The big problem as will all short 00 slips is finding space for and fitting the tiny remaining bit of the K-crossing check rail, as above.

 

For this very short slip in 00 it might be possible to omit the K-crossing check rails without causing any running problems, which would make building it very much easier. It would need some experiments with the actual rolling stock and location.

 

The proper prototype answer at 1:5 is an outside slip, which would look better and run better, but needs more space.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

I think the switch blades would have to be longer than those shown, plus the central check rails would need to de radically designed so as not to affect the slip rails. All a bit tight but doable just

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

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

A 1:5 double-slip in 00-BF is doable for industrial sidings. Essentially it is a copy of the Peco double-slip:

 

00_5_dslip1.png.5fc2c62f57035f10f2ab6caf0eae97e6.png

 

00_5_dslip2.png.d74152b63af6b94f8bac84c4523f3087.png

 

The radius in the slip roads is 24.7". Set angles in the stock rails are 1:24 (as "A" switches). The timbering needs some tidying up.

 

The big problem as will all short 00 slips is finding space for and fitting the tiny remaining bit of the K-crossing check rail, as above.

 

For this very short slip in 00 it might be possible to omit the K-crossing check rails without causing any running problems, which would make building it very much easier. It would need some experiments with the actual rolling stock and location.

 

The proper prototype answer at 1:5 is an outside slip, which would look better and run better, but needs more space.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin, that's very helpful.

 

24.7" is probably too tight (but I'll try some stock over a temporary piece of plain track to confirm). If it is, then I'll have to try Plan B, which is a 1 in 6 with a curve starting immediately beyond the vee to increase the total divergence, if that makes sense. That will be longer than a 1 in 5 inside slip but not as long as an outside slip.

 

The K crossing issue hadn't occurred to me. As this won't be on the scenic part of the layout I could substitute some thin strip instead of rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Thanks Martin, that's very helpful.

 

24.7" is probably too tight (but I'll try some stock over a temporary piece of plain track to confirm). If it is, then I'll have to try Plan B, which is a 1 in 6 with a curve starting immediately beyond the vee to increase the total divergence, if that makes sense. That will be longer than a 1 in 5 inside slip but not as long as an outside slip.

 

The K crossing issue hadn't occurred to me. As this won't be on the scenic part of the layout I could substitute some thin strip instead of rail.

I've had a look at Plan B. Sketching it out suggests that this curve will only need to be about 20mm long to increase the effective divergence to 1 in 5.

 

Although the distance between toes on the 1 in 6 is about 30mm more than on the 1 in 5, I think everything will just still fit, so I now think that this is the way I will go. Apart from anything else, it will save me having to build another double slip!

 

Thanks again to John and Martin for their advice and assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

9 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

A 1:5 double-slip in 00-BF is doable for industrial sidings. Essentially it is a copy of the Peco double-slip:   ...

 

 

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

The K crossing issue hadn't occurred to me. As this won't be on the scenic part of the layout I could substitute some thin strip instead of rail.

 

Hmmm, I know the heart of this thread is about building your own turnouts...  but if it's 'out of sight' and the need for functionality overrides form.... and the build prospect is too daunting.....    :swoon:

Turnout_Plan_SL90-1535030595846.pdf?1498

The same template works for the Code 75 Electrofrog version SL-190.  OK, RRP is £50 (less if you shop around) but it is a fall-back option, if you're not too principled!

 

 

 

Edited by Chamby
Corrected attachment
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I've had a look at Plan B. Sketching it out suggests that this curve will only need to be about 20mm long to increase the effective divergence to 1 in 5.

 

Although the distance between toes on the 1 in 6 is about 30mm more than on the 1 in 5, I think everything will just still fit, so I now think that this is the way I will go. Apart from anything else, it will save me having to build another double slip!

 

Thanks again to John and Martin for their advice and assistance.

 

Have you printed out a Templot template ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, I know the heart of this thread is about building your own turnouts...  but if it's 'out of sight' and the need for functionality overrides form.... and the build prospect is too daunting.....    :swoon:

 

 

Turnout_Plan_SLE1490-1532353254470.pdf?2

 

OK, RRP is £50 (less if you shop around) but it is a fall-back option, if you're not too principled!

 

Unfortunately this item is HOm, i.e. 12mm gauge...:unsure: 

  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Nickey Line said:

 

Unfortunately this item is HOm, i.e. 12mm gauge...:unsure: 

 

Now corrected, thank you very much.  At least St Enodoc wouldn't have any problem with its length!

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, I know the heart of this thread is about building your own turnouts...  but if it's 'out of sight' and the need for functionality overrides form.... and the build prospect is too daunting.....    :swoon:

Turnout_Plan_SL90-1535030595846.pdf?1498

The same template works for the Code 75 Electrofrog version SL-190.  OK, RRP is £50 (less if you shop around) but it is a fall-back option, if you're not too principled!

 

 

 

Thanks Phil. I thought about that but, from what I've read, it wouldn't solve the radius problem.

 

I think I can reclaim the odd 30mm at the buffer stop end by using a flat piece of board instead of Hornby-Dublo buffers.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Have you printed out a Templot template ?

No I haven't, John. Martin's screenshots have told me all I need to know though.

 

As I've mentioned before, I build my points using C&L templates, cut and shut for curves where necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

No I haven't, John. Martin's screenshots have told me all I need to know though.

 

As I've mentioned before, I build my points using C&L templates, cut and shut for curves where necessary.

 

I can send you a PDF as it might be a bit more accurate

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, hayfield said:

 !-6 crossings ?

Ah, we are at cross purposes I think John.

 

The original question was whether a 1 in 5 double slip with a minimum radius of 30" was practicable and, with your and Martin's advice, I've concluded that it's not.

 

I already have a 1 in 6 double slip that I built as a trial piece to see whether a) I could make one that worked at all and b) use the equalising lever to operate the tiebars.

 

1927404620_20170716001doubleslipconstruction16complete.JPG.2c7611c0af9735d14b0b89592baa4a4e.JPG

 

1049555003_20170716002doubleslipconstruction17equalisingleverfromabove.JPG.91d9b626fe5aed7e1248e06dcd5be41d.JPG

It works well but it's not good enough for the scenic parts of the layout as the timbering is all over the place and with all the adjustments I made there's rather a lot of spare solder around. My intention now is to use it in the fiddle yard and curve the exits to meet up with the 1 in 5 points that form the ladder.

 

In due course I will build another 1 in 6 double slip for the terminus. That's a year or two away I think.

 

So, thanks again for your offer but I don't actually need a 1 in 6 PDF after all.

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

Hi Hayfield.

 

I must admit, I gave up on the stainless steel rail, you are all correct, I won't buy any more.

 

Starting a small EM gauge soldered construction track plan at the moment, the loft is a bit cold, so this is being built in the living room.

Ready to start laying the sleepers but unsure where to start laying the track. I guess the common crossing is the best place. I plan to glue the sleepers down and then cut the breaks with a DremmelIMG_20210214_114206.jpg.ab224618c54ee36f8d93936bb26c287c.jpg

Any advice from anyone would be welcome.

Thanks

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

329.jpeg.a7969098e64d5fc2702d10ee3cf2d0ea.jpeg

 

Another diamond crossing leaves the board, and yes I do agree that time taken gapping the timbers before laying any rails is time well spent. Aesthetically it looks nicer, you can check that everything is isolated (could save hours)  and its so easy to fill and sand the gaps flat with no rails in the way

 

As for what to do  first, I would build the common crossings first, followed by the straight stock rails next 

 

330.jpeg.b1648a07f638d45994a1940424907111.jpeg

 

Taking the opportunity of the cold wet weather stopping any DIY or allotment duties, next project on the workbench

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 15/02/2021 at 19:21, down the sdjr said:

Hi Hayfield.

 

I must admit, I gave up on the stainless steel rail, you are all correct, I won't buy any more.

 

Starting a small EM gauge soldered construction track plan at the moment, the loft is a bit cold, so this is being built in the living room.

Ready to start laying the sleepers but unsure where to start laying the track. I guess the common crossing is the best place. I plan to glue the sleepers down and then cut the breaks with a DremmelIMG_20210214_114206.jpg.ab224618c54ee36f8d93936bb26c287c.jpg

Any advice from anyone would be welcome.

Thanks

 

 

For me a Dremel would be far too harsh. I cut a sleeper to length, gap it with a small round needle file, then stick it down to the template. It only takes two or three strokes of the file and you can be sure the gap is properly made before fixing. 

I absolutely love building points with copper clad. It is soooo satisfying.

I always start with the crossing vee and wing rails. They must be positioned correctly and do need to go on first. Here's some I just completed.

20210131_124021.jpg.19e5f76e1718e901189b7c4638a0f88d.jpg20210131_124007.jpg.b713db50d13e7761426af91401dcd373.jpg

 

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ikcdab said:

For me a Dremel would be far too harsh. I cut a sleeper to length, gap it with a small round needle file, then stick it down to the template. It only takes two or three strokes of the file and you can be sure the gap is properly made before fixing. 

I absolutely love building points with copper clad. It is soooo satisfying.

I always start with the crossing vee and wing rails. They must be positioned correctly and do need to go on first. Here's some I just completed.

20210131_124021.jpg.19e5f76e1718e901189b7c4638a0f88d.jpg20210131_124007.jpg.b713db50d13e7761426af91401dcd373.jpg

 

 

That's very nice and neat, I have found that you must be careful to cut enough of a gap to stop arching,

I did try and use a razor saw, but the gap was too small and even at 12 volts arching occurred

I use a junior hacksaw to both cut the timbers and as you say break the foil, use a sharp blade and a couple of light passes is all that is required

For an even more professional finish fill the gaps with a runny dab of filler. I use Green Squadron thinned with Humbrol liquid Poly, after 24 hours filed flat before any rails are fitted

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
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...