bertiedog Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 The track is about 40 feet so 12 coaches are no problem, but they are mainly 6 wheelers and 4 wheelers! 6 wheelers tend to show up any track issues in P4 very easily indeed, and with no bogies all the stock is pretty much on the edge as to running on anything less than prototype curves. The track conforms with P4/S4, but some was built to proto dimensions before the published standard came out. Now mainly out of use in the loft due to space constraints. Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Thanks Colin, I was wondering who'd mention the slight oversize of the Pandrol clips , but it's border-line, you'd only know by comparing with piccies. Have you noticed how tricky it is feeding the clips on to rail, they end up skewed due to the offset clip mouldimg, and have to be straightened with tweezers? There is actually an even quicker way of producing a functional coarse 18.83 gauge point, take another Peco point and fillet it into three pieces by cutting through the sleepers, two sides and the frog section, then re-gauge on a new flat base, add packing to check rails for finer wheels. Takes about 20 minutes, doesn't look so neat, but works for fiddle yards. Cheers, Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Thanks Colin, I was wondering who'd mention the slight oversize of the Pandrol clips , but it's border-line, you'd only know by comparing with piccies. Have you noticed how tricky it is feeding the clips on to rail, they end up skewed due to the offset clip mouldimg, and have to be straightened with tweezers? There is actually an even quicker way of producing a functional coarse 18.83 gauge point, take another Peco point and fillet it into three pieces by cutting through the sleepers, two sides and the frog section, then re-gauge on a new flat base, add packing to check rails for finer wheels. Takes about 20 minutes, doesn't look so neat, but works for fiddle yards. Cheers, Brian. Hi Brian, I too have been very careful when threading the Pandrols onto the rails. It seems the fixings become loose if manipulated too much. I have resorted to slightly rounding the rail foot prior to threading, along with removing any burrs left from cutting the rail or filing, which is good practice anyway. So far, I have not felt the need to chop up Peco points, as the components to make a P4 point cost less than a Peco one (I think!) - unless you happen to have a pile of old points already. Colin Edit: Re Pandrol size etc.: They are at the limit if my visual acuity these days! Edited January 25, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Colin Dont forget C&L do the ST base plates for code 82 flatbottom rail, which is easily connected to Code 75. I have used both the Peco Pandrol clops and the ST baseplates, Both Peco and C&L offer superb mail order services The Peco Indvidulay track making parts are so hard to find on the Peco website, yet I am certain if these parts were more widely known they would be good sellers For instance they do a track gauge with 16.5, 18.2 and 18.83 gauges on them. They are square metal plates and I use them all the time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) Hi Colin and all, Thought you might like to see my non-kosher way of rebuilding old or broken Peco Code 75 points to 18.83 gauge. No B6 or B8 drawings involved, just re-using the rails, frog and blades provided, and adding Peco Pandrol clips superglued to traditional wooden point sleepering strip. I started building my own 18.83 flat-bottom points over 30 years ago, using Minitrix N gauge rail from flexi (which had a proper head) and copperclad, but if making your own frogs and blades, are much harder work than the equivalent bullhead type, with far more grinding and filing involved. These are 18.83mm gauge, but built with EM fine clearances, rather than P4/S4, so I can use coarser wheels, which I find more reliable. I will still scratchbuild the longer types, or for special situations, but these are a handy back-up and make up quickly, employing roller gauges and the rectangular gauge shown, for gauge widening on curves. This one below, still needs the frog nose soldering up, plus a tie-bar, the only rail grinding was for the replacement check rails. I'd run out of Peco slide chairs, and no one seems to have them in stock, so these here are bodged-up from scrap black plastic. Outside radius is 72", inside radius is 30", I wouldn't go any sharper than this. Cheers, Brian. 20170125_123713 - Copy.jpg 20170125_123901 - Copy.jpg 20170125_123743 - Copy.jpg Brian What a good idea, I do sometimes wonder about using a nonstandard track gauge standards, however if you are in a position to make your own track gauges and keep to the same standards for all wheels I guess it does not matter at all. The idea of re-constructing Peco turnouts is quite interesting and does offer a few possibilities, even perhaps differing sizes and crossing angles, though a bit of filing may be required. Edited January 26, 2017 by hayfield Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 Brian What a good idea, I do sometimes wonder about using a nonstandard track gauge standards, however if you are in a position to make your own track gauges and keep to the same standards for all wheels I guess it does not matter at all. The idea of re-constructing Peco turnouts is quite interesting and does offer a few possibilities, even perhaps differing sizes and crossing angles, though a bit of filing may be required. Hi John, Hi John, We are edging dangerously close to the 'P4 wheels with deeper flanges' type of discussion aren't we?!! On the face of it, it does seem like a good idea to go for 18.83mm gauge, but with a different set of flangeway and check gauge measurements. (18.83SF anyone?) However, if this principle would work with some wheels and with respect to clearances on vehicle bodywork, I do not know. Personally, I remain committed to P4 standards, but Brian has come up with innovations before (the Brian Kirby magnetic auto coupling dropper, which worked very well for me), so we should not discount his idea just yet. A layout with this kind of adapted track would interesting to see. One thing that does need improving on Peco Streamline is the sleeper spacing. After fifty years of 00 modellers using HO-generic flat bottom track, it is quite a shock to see just how wide the real sleeper spacing should be on British trackwork. But that is all about to change... Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 26, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2017 On the face of it, it does seem like a good idea to go for 18.83mm gauge, but with a different set of flangeway and check gauge measurements. (18.83SF anyone?) Hi Colin, It is called EM4 in Templot. It has been in the list for some time now. See gauge > other gauges... menu item. Gauge 18.8mm. Flangeway 0.8mm. Check gauge 18.0mm. Conveniently uses the 0.8mm check rail chairs available from C&L. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) Colin Dont forget C&L do the ST base plates for code 82 flatbottom rail, which is easily connected to Code 75. I have used both the Peco Pandrol clops and the ST baseplates, Both Peco and C&L offer superb mail order services The Peco Indvidulay track making parts are so hard to find on the Peco website, yet I am certain if these parts were more widely known they would be good sellers For instance they do a track gauge with 16.5, 18.2 and 18.83 gauges on them. They are square metal plates and I use them all the time Reading the topic from the bottom up, I found your post John. Yes, I do know these ST base plates can be found in the C&L range, but I opted for the Pandrols for the kind of Southern Electric area I have as my muse. There may have been ST plates on the Central Section, but from what I can tell flat bottom track was mostly laid with elastic spikes, then Pandrols - around the Newhaven area at least, (Someone will correct me if this is wrong! I have a distant memory of reading that this had something to do with compatibility with third rail fixings or adjustments.) I totally agree that the Peco Individulay components are underrated. While not giving total fidelity to the prototype, they are robust. The third rail components are particularly tough and withstood a lot of abuse during less than delicate track cleaning on my layout. The range of fixings is not great for flat bottom rail, with just two types of fixing. I have had to buy my of packets Individulay Pandrols and slide chairs in sixes from the local model shop, which does add up, but that is the only down side. One issue which I have yet to address is the fact that the Peco slide chair bases are a tad over-length for use with P4 switches, but I think I can live with that. All the best, Colin Edit: Kernow have the full range of Individulay components - ex-stock it seems. Edited January 26, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 Hi Colin, It is called EM4 in Templot. It has been in the list for some time now. See gauge > other gauges... menu item. Gauge 18.8mm. Flangeway 0.8mm. Check gauge 18.0mm. Conveniently uses the 0.8mm check rail chairs available from C&L. regards, Martin. I somehow knew you would have it covered Martin! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 The whiff of heresy about this thread is increasing . Its not safe I tell you. foul deeds are afoot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 The whiff of heresy about this thread is increasing . Its not safe I tell you. foul deeds are afoot Well I am actually engaged in 4mm scale modelling with P4 track, so what others say are entirely their own opinions! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Well I am actually engaged in 4mm scale modelling with P4 track, so what others say are entirely their own opinions! I know , some have mentioned PECO in the same sentence as P4 ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Thanks again Colin and all, i'm not trying to start any break-away movement here, or encourage others to copy me, but this is what I produce and use in the privacy of my own home (or should that be concrete bunker?). I just wanted to show how the rail sections from a broken or surplus Peco Code 75 point can be re-used, there's no reason why the parts can't be used to produce an even finer version with P4/S4 flangeway clearances, or soldered to copper-clad for fiddle yards, etc. It wouldn't make economic sense to buy new points for this exercise, and I have never suggested such. I joined the Scalefour Society in the mid-to-late 70s at The Commonwealth Institute exhibition, and have happily constructed fine and coarse pointwork ever since, for my mixture of fine and coarse wheel stock, initially scratchbuilding, later using C&L et al. I dropped out of the SS (!) about five years later (c.1982) and have gone it alone ever since. I happily attend Scaleforum as a visitor. If you want to see something really whacky, try my latest project linked below: TW thread page 566- post#14134 BK http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page-566 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted January 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2017 Hi John, Hi John, We are edging dangerously close to the 'P4 wheels with deeper flanges' type of discussion aren't we?!! On the face of it, it does seem like a good idea to go for 18.83mm gauge, but with a different set of flangeway and check gauge measurements. (18.83SF anyone?) However, if this principle would work with some wheels and with respect to clearances on vehicle bodywork, I do not know. Personally, I remain committed to P4 standards, but Brian has come up with innovations before (the Brian Kirby magnetic auto coupling dropper, which worked very well for me), so we should not discount his idea just yet. A layout with this kind of adapted track would interesting to see. Colin Shall I take it over the edge? A year ago I made a P4 test track which morphed itself into a little layout. Along the way I acquired a small amount of stock to use on it, three items of RTR motive power, Heljan class 15, Bachmann Class 08, and Heljan W&M railbus, along with wagons made from Dapol & Parkside kits. All but the 08 run on the wheels that came with them (I had some old AG O/C P4 wheels suitable for the 08), machined in a lathe to reduce the flange width to 0.4mm to pass through P4 flangeways, and reduced in width to around normal P4 levels, but with the tyre profile otherwise untouched, so whatever flange depth the wheels had, anywhere between 0.5-0.7mm. The b-t-b of course was re-set to the P4 norm. This saved any need to mess about with springing/compensation with the wagons ( which can become a chore), nor the RTR locos. This is a technique quite common in 2mm scale for converting N gauge RTR to 2FS, (in which I mainly work these days), and which I thought I would try. Everything works just as well as anything I have built to P4 in the past using proper P4 wheelsets. Here is a comparison shot of before and after wheels - these are out of Dapol/Airfix 16T mineral wagons. I hope this doesn't cause too much anguish. Izzy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Hi John, Hi John, We are edging dangerously close to the 'P4 wheels with deeper flanges' type of discussion aren't we?!! On the face of it, it does seem like a good idea to go for 18.83mm gauge, but with a different set of flangeway and check gauge measurements. (18.83SF anyone?) However, if this principle would work with some wheels and with respect to clearances on vehicle bodywork, I do not know. Personally, I remain committed to P4 standards, but Brian has come up with innovations before (the Brian Kirby magnetic auto coupling dropper, which worked very well for me), so we should not discount his idea just yet. A layout with this kind of adapted track would interesting to see. One thing that does need improving on Peco Streamline is the sleeper spacing. After fifty years of 00 modellers using HO-generic flat bottom track, it is quite a shock to see just how wide the real sleeper spacing should be on British trackwork. But that is all about to change... Colin Colin This is not for the faint hearted and only to those who have the ability to make their own track gauges and or those who can turn their own wheels, but this is going into model engineering territory rather than railway modelling. For me EM gauge fits the bill, as it is close to the correct gauge but has wheel-sets which are far more forgiving. Not only the correct Timber spacing but the correct timber width !! One issue which I have yet to address is the fact that the Peco slide chair bases are a tad over-length for use with P4 switches, but I think I can live with that. All the best, Colin Edit: Kernow have the full range of Individulay components - ex-stock it seems. Why not use the Exactoscale P4 slide chairs ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 (edited) Colin This is not for the faint hearted and only to those who have the ability to make their own track gauges and or those who can turn their own wheels, but this is going into model engineering territory rather than railway modelling. For me EM gauge fits the bill, as it is close to the correct gauge but has wheel-sets which are far more forgiving. Not only the correct Timber spacing but the correct timber width !! Why not use the Exactoscale P4 slide chairs ? Hi John, Good question. I am going to use the Exactoscale P4 slide chairson the bullhead tandem. But on flat bottom rail, the P4 slide chairs are a little short, bearing in mind the extra width of the rail foot. There are of course Exactoscale slide chairs for 00/EM which could be used. However, when comparing the Peco and Exactoscale slide chairs against prototype reference photos, the latter seemed not quite chunky enough for this application. As for any more permutations of scale/gauge combinations for 4mm, I reckon we have enough to be getting on with. I totally agree that EM is the logical choice for those who do not wish to use P4 standards (which are definitely not for the faint-hearted I am beginning to realise!) All the best, Colin Edited January 30, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 Shall I take it over the edge? A year ago I made a P4 test track which morphed itself into a little layout. Along the way I acquired a small amount of stock to use on it, three items of RTR motive power, Heljan class 15, Bachmann Class 08, and Heljan W&M railbus, along with wagons made from Dapol & Parkside kits. All but the 08 run on the wheels that came with them (I had some old AG O/C P4 wheels suitable for the 08), machined in a lathe to reduce the flange width to 0.4mm to pass through P4 flangeways, and reduced in width to around normal P4 levels, but with the tyre profile otherwise untouched, so whatever flange depth the wheels had, anywhere between 0.5-0.7mm. The b-t-b of course was re-set to the P4 norm. This saved any need to mess about with springing/compensation with the wagons ( which can become a chore), nor the RTR locos. This is a technique quite common in 2mm scale for converting N gauge RTR to 2FS, (in which I mainly work these days), and which I thought I would try. Everything works just as well as anything I have built to P4 in the past using proper P4 wheelsets. Here is a comparison shot of before and after wheels - these are out of Dapol/Airfix 16T mineral wagons. RMweb P4 wagons 03.jpg I hope this doesn't cause too much anguish. Izzy Hi Izzy, That is very nice bit of turning you have achieved with those wheels. You are certainly not the first to have done this kind of thing, though perhaps one of a handful who admits to it! I have been wondering about deeper flanges in my darker moments, then resolve to carry on with P4 wheels. How did you manage to hold the wheels securely during the machining process? I have been known in the past to have reduced the flange depth on similar wagon wheels by Hornby and Bachmann. The one snag I found was that over time, the alloy oxidised, being devoid of the original plated finish. Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted January 27, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 27, 2017 Hi Izzy, That is very nice bit of turning you have achieved with those wheels. You are certainly not the first to have done this kind of thing, though perhaps one of a handful who admits to it! I have been wondering about deeper flanges in my darker moments, then resolve to carry on with P4 wheels. How did you manage to hold the wheels securely during the machining process? I have been known in the past to have reduced the flange depth on similar wagon wheels by Hornby and Bachmann. The one snag I found was that over time, the alloy oxidised, being devoid of the original plated finish. Colin Thanks Colin. I doubt I would have tried it had I some suitable P4 wagon wheels to hand along with the mindset to fit etched w-irons etc. Been there, done that ad infinitum etc. As I didn't it seemed worth a punt. I have of course just plonked P4 wheels into RTR wagons in the past with no particular running issues, but it was a case of why waste the wheels provided in the kits for a little effort. The turning was just skimming the backs and fronts using small cuts while holding the wheels on a arbour in a collect chuck. I did not touch the main wheel profile, tread/root radius/flange (basically the same except for the allowance for differing flange depth/width). This allows a little leeway if the wheels are not mounted 100% true because of course you need a tool that can hold them by the outer flange/tread to ensure that. The rear/top edge of the flange was broken - with care - using a file while the wheel was running in the lathe after skimming the back. The front centres were just filed flush to match afterwards. Dapol wheels are alloy and don't machine quite as nicely as Romfords do being brass. I'll have to keep an eye on the oxidisation front. Most plated wheels in 2mm are mazak based so don't have this issue. I had assumed the 4mm ones were none-steel alloy/aluminum. Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 28, 2017 Author Share Posted January 28, 2017 Hi Izzy, From what you are saying, my comments about oxidisation would probably not apply as you you have not disturbed the plated tread and flange. The times I did fiddle around with flange depths on 00 wheels I used a parting off tool to reduce the flange and needle file to round it over this was judged it by eye. The 3" chuck I have in my lathe is a three-jaw -not the most subtle of machines, but it worked. I seem recall reading in the notorious article in MRJ 234 that modeller also turned Jackson/Romford wheels down to a P4 kind of profile like you have described. Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 28, 2017 Author Share Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) Meanwhile, just to show I am actually doing some modelling, here is an assortment of completed stretcher bar brackets. There are enough here to all the brackets I will ever need and they include 11 left and right-handed ones with drive rod tabs and 25 plain ones. The whole process took three and a half hours, which does not seem a bad return on the time taken. I found that the scrap etch was marked a 8 thou., which was as I thought having measured it with my metric vernier gauge at 0.2mm. (Ah, what did the EU ever give us? Er, metrication. (Hmm, must buy a set of imperial marked rulers in the next two years.) These brackets have all been reduced in length by 1mm. I was concerned that they not only looked too long, but that the length of GEL strip between them was going to be too short, which could have caused unnecessary stress on the GEL stretcher bar. It is a matter of balancing the appearance with the function: too small and there would be insufficient surface to bond the the bracket to the GEL strip. This has to be right because the operation and reliability of the switch depends on these tiny, yet still over-scale parts. The next amusement before going back to university on Tuesday is to fabricate some drive rods out of brass wire and strip. My friend Howard Bolton suggests fitting these rods the driven brackets before fixing the brackets to the switch rails. It does look almost impossible to do otherwise! Edited January 28, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted January 28, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28, 2017 Hi Izzy, From what you are saying, my comments about oxidisation would probably not apply as you you have not disturbed the plated tread and flange. The times I did fiddle around with flange depths on 00 wheels I used a parting off tool to reduce the flange and needle file to round it over this was judged it by eye. The 3" chuck I have in my lathe is a three-jaw -not the most subtle of machines, but it worked. I seem recall reading in the notorious article in MRJ 234 that modeller also turned Jackson/Romford wheels down to a P4 kind of profile like you have described. Colin Hi Colin, As Hayfield so rightly remarked, although inter-related this is slightly more to do with engineering than modelling, and for those with reliance on commercial parts EM does seem the best all-round compromise. Even Tony Wright admits in his latest postings that EM might have been the better choice had he taken it at the start. Interestingly the 2FS standards have several times been described to me as like a mix between P4 and EM - P4/18.83 with EM flangeways, and that does indeed seem to be the general relationship. Pendon (I believe) goes the other way with EM gauge and near P4 flangeways, Ultrascale providing their own profile wheels to suit ('Pendon standard' I think it's generally known as). The truth is sometimes I think there are as many differing standards as there are hot dinners........and I pity newcommers trying to find their way through the maze to find a result that suits their personal needs. All part of the fun/learning experience I guess! Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Hi Colin, As Hayfield so rightly remarked, although inter-related this is slightly more to do with engineering than modelling, and for those with reliance on commercial parts EM does seem the best all-round compromise. Even Tony Wright admits in his latest postings that EM might have been the better choice had he taken it at the start. Interestingly the 2FS standards have several times been described to me as like a mix between P4 and EM - P4/18.83 with EM flangeways, and that does indeed seem to be the general relationship. Pendon (I believe) goes the other way with EM gauge and near P4 flangeways, Ultrascale providing their own profile wheels to suit ('Pendon standard' I think it's generally known as). The truth is sometimes I think there are as many differing standards as there are hot dinners........and I pity newcommers trying to find their way through the maze to find a result that suits their personal needs. All part of the fun/learning experience I guess! Izzy Hi Izzy, Yes, there are many standards out there. I will stick to the P4 standards for now, though I acknowledge that a number of people such as yourself are findings individual ways of improving running on their layouts. I have heard of the Pendon Standard. Indeed, I have a set of Ultrascale 00 wheels for a Hornby class 73 to this standard. (It never derailed on my 00 layout!) It certainly is confusing for the newcomer to P4. One thing that only became apparent to me after ordering Exactoscale coach and wagon wheels was the fact that most P4 offerings are not to scale width (steam locos may be a different matter). Gauge widening is also a dark art, which seems to be necessary around switches and stock rails, where a 0.1mm allowance is made to avoid gauge narrowing on divergent routes. Colin Edited January 30, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) One step forwards and two steps back characterises the work done yesterday. Using a cluster of roller gauges, the exact positions of the switches and closure rail assembly of this turnout found some slight misalignments between the switches and closure rails. This was easily corrected by adjusting the switches in relation to the stock rails, with some careful re-soldering of the brass packing strips - just visible under the + 0.1mm gauge. What was not so easy to overcome was the fact that I had cut the point rail of the crossing 8mm too short, leaving a gap between it and the stock rail of the next turnout's stock rail. The only thing to do was to fabricate a new crossing vee with a correct length point and splice rail, then insert it between the original wing rails, having removed the offending vee first of course. I have got away with it, but would not recommend this procedure as an easy fix. Edited January 30, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) More progress from earlier today. The sleepers are now all laid on this board, leaving just the catch point and the timbers which will have soleplates added (the upturned loose ones). These timbers have to be set lower to allow for the thickness of the soleplates, which will be fashioned from 10 thou. plasticard. I am wondering about the merits of pre-staining the sleepers, as the stain I have been using is leaving a powdery surface on the timbering stained so far. This might affect the bond between the plastic chairs and Pandrol bases and the plywood - not a good idea.. Here are a couple of images of the three flat bottom rail turnouts, with corrected crossing on the l/h one. The rail assemblies are just loosely laid in position, but the slinky appearance of the B8 geometry and Templot's facility to insert turnouts in curves of any radius can be seen here. Much to do before laying anything permanently on the baseboard, but it is slowly beginning to come together. I will have to investigate why there is a marked bulge in the timbering on the l/h side of the tandem. Must have been shoving the timbers about too much. Edited January 30, 2017 by Colin parks 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted January 30, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30, 2017 I am wondering about the merits of pre-staining the sleepers, as the stain I have been using is leaving a powdery surface on the timbering stained so far. This might affect the bond between the plastic chairs and Pandrol bases and the plywood - not a good idea.. I tried staining ply sleepers in the distant past and found that chair to sleeper bonding wasn't always as good as it could be. Now I just paint them with Rowney black poster paint after construction, with burnt sienna along the rail sides, the latter helping to bond the rail to the chairs when dry. After ballasting I spray the track with more of the same colours to taste. The overall effect seems fairly reasonable. There are a few shots here -post #15 might be the best - which may show whether you think it worth trying this method: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116233-theatre-indicator-on-platform-starter/ Izzy 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