RMweb Premium Reorte Posted January 24, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24, 2016 Removing hand-built track, I repositioned a couple of turnouts once which involved lifting them. I'd used Copydex, and they were stuck down on top of the template, so I managed to get under the template to lift them. Still had to repair a little bit though. How many hours would I save if I could buy my turnouts? So what? It's a hobby that I enjoy doing, saving time on it is rather missing the point (although some bits get tedious when they take too long and it's always nice to see progress, so perhaps). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisG Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 John, I do understand that the price can be justified on the basis laid out in the C&L statement. I think I'm just wondering what market this product will gather. I should declare my hand - I have built all bar a few of the turnouts for my reasonably large layout, almost exclusively sourced form the C&L catalogue using most construction methods - soldered PCB, glued plastic and glued wood/plastic (with Timbertracks timbers). So I'm really not in the market for anything right now, though I'm always interested to see where the hobby will lead. I've certainly seen the price of PCB strip rocket in the last few years, making fully chaired construction much more comparable to it in price. Maybe it's now cheaper? I haven't checked: for me it's mostly about which method gives the best results. The "now retired, have an empty nest and the time money and space" place that many of us now find ourselves in is certainly a major factor, and we are seeing top of the range ready made items appearing in a number of places, of which this is clearly one. I am interested to hear the EMGS jigs are still available - I've been using a crossing vee jig for many years now (actually a copy made by South Hants MRS), but I'd given up on ever getting a blade filing jig because I thought they were out of production. At that price, it's certainly worth tracking down, even if only for the few turnouts I still have to build! p.s. your own blog on turnout building was my rubric when I started building track again about three years ago (after a break of 15-20 years). Much appreciated! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Chris The C+L product is a top of the range item, which by its price will be restricted to a few modellers. However I think the following is good for the hobby 1) It is proving there is a market for 00 gauge ready made turnouts 2) It now open up a market for someone who thinks they can make these items far cheaper 3) Others can copy the simplified building process At the moment it does not cater for those who want cheap products. When the first of the more expensive locos first appeared many said they would not sell and not catch on. Now look at the market for these models. Track will go the same way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERS Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Puts the debate about the cost of building a layout on another thread into context... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Puts the debate about the cost of building a layout on another thread into context... But if you populate the layout with professionally built stock and buildings it puts it into the same context. These are not massed produced items, but professionally built kits. Would you compare the cost of a Comet coach professionally built to its RTR equivalent, or a Southeastern Finecast lock kit professionally built to a Hornby loco? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisG Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I visited the C&L stand at the Southampton show this morning and was able to inspect a display model as well as one that was for sale. Phil was manning the stand. I observed that the display model and the packaged model had visibly different flangeways. The display model even had one flangeway wider than the other, plus a slight flare on the knuckle joint. Phil was unable to tell me what the flangeway was, He said the turnouts were built using the ready made crossings, which he said were suitable for OO & EM (i.e. 1mm flangeway). Looking at the kits it was clear they do not use the pre-fabricated crossings and to be honest I was left non-plussed by the whole thing. Anyway, it appears the turnouts may not be built to consistent standards, unless of course the display model is a reject (which is understandable but neither advisable nor helpful). Unfortunately, I don't think Phil is familiar with the technicalities of hand-built pointwork, so it wasnt possible to get a coherent answer. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Chris Difficult for me to answer as the turnout uses a slightly different build method to the one I use. Knowing the builder I would have thought they would have been put together using a gauge, it may have been knocked or something. The display model I saw had 1.25 flangeways and used a different selection of chairs than those I used. The packaged ones may differ The display model did not use the ready made common crossings but may have used the pre-assembled Vees, Phil is interested in both N and 0 gauge ytherefore it might be better putting the questions to Peter at Bristol. I will send Phil a message regarding your observations Edit It may be the end flares that are slightly out rather than the flangeways. I will have a closer look at my photos tomorrow as I am getting called to change for dinner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I have added the remaining part for the chaired PL2 slide chair, been a stop start day due to house viewings so in some ways I have done well and in other ways a bit behind. Off for a nice meal tonight at our favourite restaurant so tools downed for the day. Need to think through the tiebar solution, I do have some 4 mm brass slide chairs so I think that's the way forward Regarding the chairs holding all together, they are all working perfectly well to the naked eye, and on a simple test my 03 works well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I visited the C&L stand at the Southampton show this morning and was able to inspect a display model as well as one that was for sale. Phil was manning the stand. I observed that the display model and the packaged model had visibly different flangeways. The display model even had one flangeway wider than the other, plus a slight flare on the knuckle joint. Phil was unable to tell me what the flangeway was, He said the turnouts were built using the ready made crossings, which he said were suitable for OO & EM (i.e. 1mm flangeway). Looking at the kits it was clear they do not use the pre-fabricated crossings and to be honest I was left non-plussed by the whole thing. Anyway, it appears the turnouts may not be built to consistent standards, unless of course the display model is a reject (which is understandable but neither advisable nor helpful). Unfortunately, I don't think Phil is familiar with the technicalities of hand-built pointwork, so it wasnt possible to get a coherent answer. Chris Chris Looking at my photos certainly the flare on the curved road is larger than the flare on the straight road. On an 00sf plan the flare starts 7 mm from the tip of the Vee, so even if the flares on the rails differ the flangeways may very well be in gauge. I only have photos from the same side, none are conclusive and we all know photos can make something look what it is not. Being a track builder using these parts I have learnt to let everything set overnight, as both the joint could have moved and the chairs sometimes relax back (if held upright by a gauge with a deep slot) into position. Don't ask how I found out. The chairs incline the rail by 1-20 and the rail head normally rotates in the gauge slot, if the slots are too deep and a tad tight the rail is held upright, over a few hours will relax back reducing the gauge. Like wise whilst in the early part of the solvent setting a chair can move once the gauge has been taken off. A quick check with fresh eyes and gauges the next day usually spots this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisG Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Thank you, a most interesting e-mail.... I clearly used the word "flare" wrongly. What I meant was that it looked as though the wing rail was not parallel to the running rail on one side of the of the crossing. The main thing are your comments on the structure relaxing. This could well explain my experience with all-plastic construction which was that turnouts which were fine when built had become narrow by the time they became to be laid. I put it down each time to faulty gauging by me in the first place. It was nearly always on the curved turnout road, and I am now also wondering if failure to bend the rail in the first place contributed to the problem. I am sure I am more clumsy with the solvent than most people so I'm guessing also that the more liberal one is with the solvent the more one will experience this "relaxation"! All this eventually led me to abandon all-plastic construction and I switched to timber sleepering, with greater success. Armed with your helpful knowledge I could well be tempted to try all plastic construction again for the remaining section of my layout... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I visited the C&L stand at the Southampton show this morning and was able to inspect a display model as well as one that was for sale. Phil was manning the stand. I observed that the display model and the packaged model had visibly different flangeways. The display model even had one flangeway wider than the other, plus a slight flare on the knuckle joint. Phil was unable to tell me what the flangeway was, He said the turnouts were built using the ready made crossings, which he said were suitable for OO & EM (i.e. 1mm flangeway). Looking at the kits it was clear they do not use the pre-fabricated crossings and to be honest I was left non-plussed by the whole thing. Anyway, it appears the turnouts may not be built to consistent standards, unless of course the display model is a reject (which is understandable but neither advisable nor helpful). Unfortunately, I don't think Phil is familiar with the technicalities of hand-built pointwork, so it wasnt possible to get a coherent answer. Chris I would assume the flangeway at the crossing/frog is 1.0mm , as that is the pre-fabricated crossings. However if you replicated that at the check rail , on 16.5mm track , then RTR would not run without adjustment. The implication of what you are describing is that the checkrail flangeway is different - and therefore almost certainly wider - than the crossing flangeway on the display model. Presumably 1.25mm. You might just get away with that using RTR - the check span might be acceptable. But if they are not using the pre-fabricated crossings on the packaged model then they are not tied to having a 1.0mm flangeway at the crossing. And the safe, prudent thing to do would be to ease the crossing out to 1.25mm, guaranteeing that all modern OO RTR will in fact go through the point That would account for your observations Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I would assume the flangeway at the crossing/frog is 1.0mm , as that is the pre-fabricated crossings. However if you replicated that at the check rail , on 16.5mm track , then RTR would not run without adjustment. The implication of what you are describing is that the checkrail flangeway is different - and therefore almost certainly wider - than the crossing flangeway on the display model. Presumably 1.25mm. You might just get away with that using RTR - the check span might be acceptable. But if they are not using the pre-fabricated crossings on the packaged model then they are not tied to having a 1.0mm flangeway at the crossing. And the safe, prudent thing to do would be to ease the crossing out to 1.25mm, guaranteeing that all modern OO RTR will in fact go through the point That would account for your observations As I stated in the early part of the thread, only the Vee is soldered, the wing/closer rails are held in place with a selection of different chairs. My own experiment was with the 0.8 mm check chairs used in conjunction with the common crossing chairs, using a 1 mm flangeway gap. I could not check the demonstration turnout, but the gap seemed larger than 1 mm. I assumed as it was clearly marked 00 gauge the gaps are 1.25 mm The standards I have used as you know will also allow most if not all modern RTR stock as well as kit built stock to go through the crossing, and at the same time look slightly finer, hopefully I have managed to get all the correct chairs in position including switch special chairs as well as common crossing chairs. But most of all, I used a few simple tools and basic techniques that most modellers will be able to copy without any trouble, to build a turnout that works, without having to solder together a common crossing. The chairs are clearly working functionally. Most of my build could also be used for DOGA intermediate standards with the exception of the common crossing where the selection of chairs used by the C&L builder may be more appropriate. DOGA fine standards will work perfectly using the same chair selection in my version Hopefully this destroys the myth that building turnouts is difficult, needs special tools and beyond the capabilities of the average modeller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I clearly used the word "flare" wrongly. What I meant was that it looked as though the wing rail was not parallel to the running rail on one side of the of the crossing. The main thing are your comments on the structure relaxing. This could well explain my experience with all-plastic construction which was that turnouts which were fine when built had become narrow by the time they became to be laid. I put it down each time to faulty gauging by me in the first place. It was nearly always on the curved turnout road, and I am now also wondering if failure to bend the rail in the first place contributed to the problem. I am sure I am more clumsy with the solvent than most people so I'm guessing also that the more liberal one is with the solvent the more one will experience this "relaxation"! All this eventually led me to abandon all-plastic construction and I switched to timber sleepering, with greater success. Armed with your helpful knowledge I could well be tempted to try all plastic construction again for the remaining section of my layout... Chris Chris Len Newman who started K&L which became C+L, then started Exactoscale track parts designed the plastic timbers to match I believe the thin ply timbers and sleepers that were used in the ply and rivet method. It became clear that the sleepers/timbers in some cases would be better in a thicker plastic, to stop the curl that happens when the solvent dries. With Exactoscale only thicker plastic sleepers/timbers were produced. Also it was found that Butanone worked very well bonding plastic chairs to ply sleepers/timbers The other problem is with the gauges, the chairs hold the rail at the 1-0 cant. Normally the head of the rail will rotate in the gauge keeping the rail at the correct angle. The trouble comes if the rail is held in the gauge too tight and or the depth of the groove in the gauge is too long. Both will hold the rail vertical in the chair, once removed the chair will slowly relax back to the correct angle and reducing the gauge. With 00 gauge this may not matter as there is a bit of slack in the system. P4 and EM gauges especially on curves will be affected If you add to these with the C+L roller gauges being to DOGA fine standards, the unsuspecting modeller has 3 potential problems to cope with Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clecklewyke Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I wonder whether there will still be a market for these if Peco bring out OO bullhead pointwork? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeeleyBridge Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I wonder whether there will still be a market for these if Peco bring out OO bullhead pointwork? Yes I'm sure there will. Peco will still be Peco after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lee Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I believe that the market for improved Peco points and the market for C&L kits and ready-assembled points is different. I would be surprised if many large layouts went the C&L route. On the other hand, one possible opinion is that with smaller layouts the eye is drawn to the fine detail more on small layouts. I suspect that most of the people going for the new Peco track will be the ones who would use Peco Code 75 now, and people who use SMP or C&L flexible track with Peco Code 75 points. SMP and C&L may lose a few sales of flexible track, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I personally think if PECO do a good implementation of bull head point work, may be with proper switch blades, and a metal check rail, I think they will decimate the other option for 00 on the market. I suspect the main driver currently for better 00 is that the current PECO offering is visually poor, fix that and most 00 modellers, including many potential point builders, will look no further dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Dave I would agree with you IF Peco did a good representation of bullhead turnouts For a start its not truly bullhead rail, though this is a minor issue, the main design process for Peco will be to have a complete integrated track system. Now the simple answer is "all they have to do is to copy the prototype" The problem in doing this would not give an integrated track system. An example a Peco point/turnout has to be able to be a stand alone unit or one half of a crossover, or one of the parts of a junction. In most instances in a crossover two turnouts would need splicing together so to create the correct track centres. This is easy when hand building track but not so easy if using for instance 2 A6 turnouts But an integrated system the turnout has to be both a stand alone unit and part of an integrated unit, so its design and size is dictated for instance in a crossover etc. The design has to be a compromise between looking right and working with other units Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernBlue80s Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I have a small layout, so the eye is drawn to detail. I am not confident enough to build my own track, I do not own a soldering iron and do not want to invest in the kit with which to build stuff - As I only want 3 turnouts. I do not want to use existing Peco points as they are just not good enough visually . I also want to use bullhead rail. So I am a member of the marketplace in question. I am waiting for someone, anyone Peco, C&L ect to produce ready to use bullhead rail and turn outs, that I can buy off the shelf. Does anyone have any news? Are any of the manufacturers close to bringing out a ready to buy stuff that surpasses code 75? Thanks Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 1, 2016 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2016 I am waiting for someone, anyone Peco, C&L ect to produce ready to use bullhead rail and turn outs, that I can buy off the shelf. Does anyone have any news? Are any of the manufacturers close to bringing out a ready to buy stuff that surpasses code 75? Hi Steve, There are 4 types of bullhead flexi-track already available, and one more (Peco) about to hit the shops. Peco were showing a pre-production mock-up of their bullhead turnouts at Warley exhibition last week. See this topic for pictures: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/ In addition, DCC Concepts have said that their bullhead turnouts are well under way. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernBlue80s Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Thanks Martin. That is exactly the info I was after. So DCC and Peco have turn outs in the offing...excellent. A pack of flexi track and three turnouts waiting to be purchased here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.