coachmann Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Making steam era points in flatbottom would be all wrong. A BH turnout is plently strong Er......You know this for a fact? Feel free to share your experience of plastic points... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I posted all this a few days ago, but here we go again.... If you did I apologise. It must have been around the time my eyes started glazing over and I started falling backwards trying to keep up with this thread. But thank you for taking the time to answer it again, much appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Er......You know this for a fact? Feel free to share your experience of plastic points... Ive built the SMP plastic kit , I've made up test turnouts in ply and functional chairs and just recently with c& l plastic sleepers and functional chairs , all in BH rail , while I still have some issues None of them relate to the resulting strength I don't see why you feel BH would produce a weak point. I would also contend that an injection moulded base would produce an even stronger point them my own efforts. Are they as strong as Setrack points no, nor would I think k they ever would be. But they are plently strong in careful hands Going to flatbottom , would ruin the look, the chairing would be wrong and the rail bottom would be too low. You might as well stay with PECO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Coachman - I'm guessing you are concerned about movement of the stock rails when hit by the switch rails when using a solenoid motor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 It does amuse me when people ask for the new points to allow for wider than scale track centres so that carriages with big overhangs can go round tight curves without hitting the one coming the other way and that they should match up with "set track" curves. Trust me on this but if anybody wants to run main line trains round curves like that, no amount of fiddling with the sleeper spacing on points will make it look realistic! Any new product should have, in my view, a sensible large radius/ angle (say 1:6 or even 1:7) and should really be aimed at people who really want to build more realistic model railways, not train sets. Have you ever built an 00 layout ? the fact is scale separation distances generate issues at 30" or less radius , especially with long modern coaches and tension lock couplings. Note that crossing angles are not radii and have nothing to do with track separation , there is no issue having a B6 crossing with greater then scale track separation . The issue in question is the overall geometry of any set of turnouts so that users can assemble them in any matter and retain parallel tracks. ( or not ) Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 12, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2016 the "must have every prototype feature scaled down, regardless of practicality" faction ... ... I regret to inform them that my back is broad, my skin is thick, and I won't be running away to cry Another bad-tempered post. We now have factions in addition to hidden agendas. Graeme, are you actually capable of making a joke or a light-hearted post? You do realise that we are talking about a hobby where grown men play with toy trains? Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Ive built the SMP plastic kit , I've made up test turnouts in ply and functional chairs and just recently with c& l plastic sleepers and functional chairs , all in BH rail , while I still have some issues None of them relate to the resulting strength I don't see why you feel BH would produce a weak point. I would also contend that an injection moulded base would produce an even stronger point them my own efforts. Are they as strong as Setrack points no, nor would I think k they ever would be. But they are plently strong in careful hands Going to flatbottom , would ruin the look, the chairing would be wrong and the rail bottom would be too low. You might as well stay with PECO. Thanks, I'll do that! Coachman - I'm guessing you are concerned about movement of the stock rails when hit by the switch rails when using a solenoid motor. I am. I am also concerned with a strong unit Jeff. A representation of a chair will hold flat bottom rail a lot more securely than bullhead rail. The OP's idea was for a fairly modest, and probably achievable objective, which is why he started this thread. I am simply trying to develop this objective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Coachman - I'm guessing you are concerned about movement of the stock rails when hit by the switch rails when using a solenoid motor. In a moulded plastic base , everything is well supported in their respective chairs. Breaking the rail out of the chair is almost impossible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I am. I am also concerned with a strong unit. A representation of a chair will hold flat bottom rail a lot more securely than bullhead rail. Where is the evidence or even reasoned argument to support that claim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Gees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Another bad-tempered post. We now have factions in addition to hidden agendas. Graeme, are you actually capable of making a joke or a light-hearted post? You do realise that we are talking about a hobby where grown men play with toy trains? Martin. "railway modelling isn't a matter of life and death, it's much more important then that "With apologies to Bill Shankly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Gees. "There was a terrific crash and a brick had smashed through the window of the family chapel. About the brick was wrapped a note, which simply said "Hello, I’m your new neighbour". Henry was plainly delighted. "Seems a decent enough egg" he grunted "at least he didn’t have the impertinence to present himself at the front door."" Sir Henry at Rawlinsons End , 1978 ( one of my favourite movies !) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I have built P4 track with ply sleepers and glued C&L chairs - it's pretty strong although admittedly I have Tortoise slow-acting motors so no rail slamming involved. They have been assembled for getting on for thirty years and are as strong as when first assembled. The rail fits into the chairs just as firmly, if not more so than Peco FB in moulded clips and the glue seems to be holding well. My current On30 layout uses RTL Micro Engineering code 70 FB track. The rail is held in place by tiny 'pips' of plastic to represent spikes - much smaller than the Peco clips. The turnouts were quite fragile until securely stuck down to the cork bed. I did actually 'roll out' a rail in plain track when trying to reposition after gluing but luckily it popped right back in to the spikes. Nevertheless there is no warning about not using solenoid motors and in any case the point blade to stock rail gap is smaller than Peco so the point blades would not accelerate to as higher speed as Peco. Anyway the point! I am making is that even with quite fragile turnout assemblies, once stuck down they are quite strong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 The same people that can overlook a 12v motor being used in place of a 12 cylinder Sulzer? Also those who believe their rails are 18.83mm apart, even when they measure 16.5mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Er......You know this for a fact? Feel free to share your experience of plastic points... Coachman I am not a great lover of thin plastic track of any make, with flexi track if you pin it down (many modellers do this) you can bend it out of gauge and with using solvent on the thin sleepers they tend to curl unless well glued down The plastic chairs on their own are quite fragile, but when used in numbers especially when using then in conjunction with thick plastic timbering (which itself strengthens their grip) they may a very strong bond to the rails. Watford MRC are making a small portable layout and I advised the use of both the Exactoscale fastrack bases but also Exactoscale's plastic timbers, as I feel these give the best strength combination for a portable layout As said the tiebars can be the weak link, but modern point motors are quite kind to hand made track and gives the modeller the option to hide them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Will the last person to leave this thread kindly remember to shut the door on the way out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Will the last person to leave this thread kindly remember to shut the door on the way out? Derek Is that the hidden agenda ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hi Mike, On secondary lines it's likely that it was second-hand pointwork cascaded down from main-line use. Experiments with flat-bottom track began before the war in 1936 and included switches and crossings, which were "tried widely in fast main lines in this country" according to BRT. When the finalised BR FB designs using the new 109lb rail were introduced in 1950, it's likely that some of the older experimental pointwork may have been replaced early for ease of ongoing maintenance. It would have been too good to scrap, so used for lighter traffic locations where unlikely to need much subsequent lifetime maintenance. (Just my conjecture, no actual evidence.) Martin. I have a copy of the War Office's "notes on Military Railway Engineering" from 1940 and they'd gone over to FB by then. They comment that BH is standard in "England" (bit of a slip of the pen there!!) parts of India and a few other countries but FB is standard for the rest of the world. "FB has been adopted for (British) military use because it is quicker to lay, easier to transport, and less complications and special fittings are required for turnouts." By then there were British Standards for FB as well as BH rail It also included this comment on sleeper lengths. "For many years the standard wooden sleeper used in British practice has been 9ft x 10in. x 5in; theory and practice, however, have indicated that packing the sleeper more than 18in each way from the centre of the rail tends to cause uneven settlement and bending of the sleeper under load. For 4ft 8 1/2 in. gauge therefore a length of 8ft 6in is sufficient" So it seems it wasn't to save timber that sleeper lengths were reduced from 9ft but a better understanding of how track behaves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Yes, I regret to announce that as I sit here in my undersea volcano in the South Pacific, remotely controlling the death star, that I am the eminence gris that is behind all the hidden agendas from the european union, to North Korea and the new world order. Derek Is that the hidden agenda ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 12, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2016 So it seems it wasn't to save timber that sleeper lengths were reduced from 9ft but a better understanding of how track behaves. Hi David, Many thanks for that. My understanding has been that the prime reason was to allow assembled track panels to be transported within the loading gauge. Perhaps there were several reasons for the change. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 The American Railway Tie Association (I only just discovered there was such a thing!) in their FAQ (http://www.rta.org/faqs) says: What is the typical size of mainline railroad ties? Standard Ties = 7” x 9” x 8.5’ or 9’ long I just measured the one in my back yard and It is 7" x 9". Not very relevant to the topic except that it suggests there probably isn't any appreciable shrinkage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Hi David, Many thanks for that. My understanding has been that the prime reason was to allow assembled track panels to be transported within the loading gauge. Perhaps there were several reasons for the change. regards, Martin. Almost certainly. It sounds like there was nothing wrong with 9ft sleepers so long as you didn't pack the ballast under the ends but the ends were then not doing anything useful. . One other (among many other) interesting thing from the military book was their choice of frog angles (they referred to frogs or crossings so both terms were in common use) they'd standardised on no. 6 no. 8 and no. 12. with straight frogs and switch rails, but though most of us would probably consider it reasonably generous "the no. 6 will only be used in very congested areas such as docks and where small shunting engines usually operate; the no. 8 is the standard for general yard and station work; the no. 12 will only be used in places where high speeds are expected." the no. 8 and 12 turnouts had total lengths of 80ft and 120ft. so for 16.5mm gauge would be 11 ins. & 16 ins. long respectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trustytrev Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Hello, I just measured the one in my back yard and It is 7" x 9". Not very relevant to the topic except that it suggests there probably isn't any appreciable shrinkage. Did you calibrate your tape measure first? trustytrev. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Hello, Did you calibrate your tape measure first? trustytrev. Junctionmad calibrated it for me. I checked it against a piece of P4 track and it says the gauge is 0.65". Close enough I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Yes, I regret to announce that as I sit here in my undersea volcano in the South Pacific, remotely controlling the death star, that I am the eminence gris that is behind all the hidden agendas from the european union, to North Korea and the new world order. Is the death star to 00 or H0 or have the P4 boys finally got their hands on one ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.