OO Handmade Points

[Guest jim s-w]

I will probably fill the insulation slots on the new junction to improve close up views of the sleepers.

 

 

Hi Gordon

 

Try using neat goache straight from the tube - fills and colours in one easy hit!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Mallard60022]

Hi 36E

It never occurred to me that such a thing existed

This may be the way to go. Just to clarify reprofiled, you mean have the wheels replaced or do you mean actual reprofiled which I assume means reworked on a lathe?

Thanks

Dan

 

There is a company In RM or BRM that advertises reprofiling the actual old wheels; can't remember which mag - sorry. However, I have never used this service or know anyone that has so I can't comment on the result.

Good luck, 36E

[hayfield]

Hi Donw, thanks for your advice,

 

What is involved in re-wheeling a loco, is it something that only a professional should undertake or is it within the scope of the average hobbyist? I like the look of the finer gauge track and if it was possible to re wheel the locos myself then I would probably seek to sell the Peco turnouts on one of the auction sites, they're box never been used, albeit 35 years old.

 

Dan

 

Dan another option is to rewheel the locos, I have an old Wills Caley tank which takes the Triang/Hornby metal chassis, I have a set of Romford (Markits now) wheels and Romford (Hornby type) axles plus a set of Mainly Trains etched coupling rods, Other than fitting the gear wheel on to the (knarled) axle it should be straight forward. I have several kit built locos which have either Hornby or Hornby Dublo chassis with replacement Romford wheels, they run fine but are only let down by the overscale coupling rods. So who ever re-profiles wheels should have no problems. As for cost etc I have no idea which is cheaper

 

 

I appreciate everything you say. I don't want to cause myself problems with working in "coarse scale" (is this a reference to code 100 trackwork). It seems that to go with code 100 purely to satisfy my requirement to run the old locos may not be the best route to follow. I shall have to see what is involved in re wheeling my present Locos - if it's a high cost then perhaps they don't all have to be done at once.

 

Dan

 

I was a bit liberal in the use of coarse scale when replying, your old trains will run on Peco etc code 100. Its just that with the old wheels the gap between the outside rail and check rail has to be slightly wider to accept older wheels. Also with the newer RTR and fine scale wheels the gaps can smaller, but with 00 gauge there will always be an element of wheel drop in the gap in the frog assembly.

 

When you line up code 100 and code 75 rail next to each other you can see the difference, however there are many fine layouts using code 100 rail, and with good ballasting and painting the visual effects can be disguised. Peco do adaptor fishplates to connect their code 100 FB to their code 75 FB rail. If you make the join where it cannot be seen to well, it might not be that noticable.

 

On your first question there was a point about 'not costing too much' (or have I got a bad memory again) changing wheels and track standards may push up the cost.

 

Make a code 100 turnout from old rail and some PCB strip, to see what it looks like and how it performs, the results may be acceptable. At the same time you could make another in code 75 to see how they compair against each other. A well made code 100 turnout will always out perform a badly made code 75 one

[Donw]

This has to be a personal descision. If you find coarse wheels spoil the models you will want to move to finer standards and possibly either EM or P4 however many are quite satisfied with code 100. Follow Hayfields advice and give it a try. Once you learn to make your own points you can adopt whatever standards suit you if your choices change.

Donw

[BR60103]

Dan:

I was only thinking of the thick flanges and tight back-to-back which would require wider flangeways which then aren't compatible with modern equipment.

I have some bits of HD and they may or may not work on code 75 or bullhead track. There are 2 bogie wagons that have extremely undergauge wheels and won't go through Peco code 75 points.

Running old stock is often like trying to run DOS programs on a new computer; it may be worth keeping a bit of old track to run old trains.

[hayfield]

Dan Its good to see so much interest in track building, as the permanent way section has been quiet on trackwork recently,so thanks for a lively thread.

I do hope we have either not confused or side tracked your thoughts on what you are trying to achieve, as you can see there are many ways of amswering your question.

[Dan6470]

Dan Its good to see so much interest in track building, as the permanent way section has been quiet on trackwork recently,so thanks for a lively thread.

I do hope we have either not confused or side tracked your thoughts on what you are trying to achieve, as you can see there are many ways of amswering your question.

 

All the information and comments are very encouraging. But I think it's a bit like parachute jumping, you talk and talk, going round in circles but can you get out of the aeroplane onto the strut and let go?

 

I am going to try it, I'm going to make the jump, probably over the Easter weekend. I want to do this. As I said in my opening post, I've been wanting to do it for years but only now am I discussing it with like minded people.

 

Thank you very much for all the help and encouragement.

 

Dan

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Dan

 

Great stuff - go for it - what have you got to loose other than a few materials and time?

 

Also have a look at how to build vees

 

and the vee and how it works

 

HTH

 

Jim

[gordon s]

Go for it Dan! You're amongst some supportive members here, so you are never far from some help or advice...

[MikeTrice]

Building turnouts is immensely satisfying. Based on my own experience do not be too disappointed if you do not get it right first time, I learnt a lot by making mistakes, and each turnout got better for it.

 

If you are using copperclad you could start by just laying the key timbers in place and soldering the rails to those until you build up confidence (less wastage if you scrap the result). When you think you have a usable turnout you can then add the missing timbers.

 

It also helps if you have a good set of templates to the correct standards to use as a basis.

[hayfield]

Dan

 

The jigs Jim uses for the V's and switch rails does make life easier and gives you the perfect angle, however to start off with there is no need for the expense if you wish to have a go.

 

 

A piece of wood and a clamp (I have done it without the clamp) and about 5 or 6 passes with a file and one half is done, then turn 180' and do the other end, offer up to the plan and if you have not filed off enough just repeat the process. After a time you will be able to judge by eye and experance.

 

 

I clean the rail with a very fine cut file, however a gentle stroke with the coarser file will do.

 

The switch rails are done the same way but both sides and a shallower angle.

[Dan6470]

That's excellent John, the method is almost identical to that described in "An Approach to Building Finescale track in 4mm". However in AABFT4 p65, the 'V' rails don't appear to be mirror images to each other but rather one rail butting up to the other, so less surface contact of the two rails albeit that they produces the required angle. So which type of 'V' is best or isn't there a best?

 

I have done a quick look for the jigs. Seems that the EMSG has the the V crossing jigs available for £20.00 and £29.00 but unfortunately you have to be a member to buy them. They also have a number of Gauges available and since I will be constructing my turnouts in OO then they are of no use but what Gauges do I need and how many. I saw a couple of "check Rail Gauges" on ebay yesterday at £6.50 a pair

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.u...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT

 

Are these what I would need? A basic list of gauges required would be most helpful if somebody wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction.

 

From the EMSG there are the following gauges, do I need OO versions of these?;

 

Track Gauge - triangular 3 point

Check Rail Gauge

Track Checking Gauge

Crossing Flangeway Gauge

Back to Back Gauge

Jim, the link to your explanation of "How to build vee's" was great explanation, very informative but the link to "The Vee and how it works", also great until I tried to follow the subsequent posts. I got totally lost and confused, but I shall persevere and I'm sure it will become clearer .... thanks:icon_thumbsup2:.

 

Dan

[hayfield]

That's excellent John, the method is almost identical to that described in "An Approach to Building Finescale track in 4mm". However in AABFT4 p65, the 'V' rails don't appear to be mirror images to each other but rather one rail butting up to the other, so less surface contact of the two rails albeit that they produces the required angle. So which type of 'V' is best or isn't there a best?

 

I have done a quick look for the jigs. Seems that the EMSG has the the V crossing jigs available for £20.00 and £29.00 but unfortunately you have to be a member to buy them. They also have a number of Gauges available and since I will be constructing my turnouts in OO then they are of no use but what Gauges do I need and how many. I saw a couple of "check Rail Gauges" on ebay yesterday at £6.50 a pair

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.u...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT

 

Are these what I would need? A basic list of gauges required would be most helpful if somebody wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction.

 

From the EMSG there are the following gauges, do I need OO versions of these?;

 

Track Gauge - triangular 3 point

Check Rail Gauge

Track Checking Gauge

Crossing Flangeway Gauge

Back to Back Gauge

Jim, the link to your explanation of "How to build vee's" was great explanation, very informative but the link to "The Vee and how it works", also great until I tried to follow the subsequent posts. I got totally lost and confused, but I shall persevere and I'm sure it will become clearer .... thanks:icon_thumbsup2:.

 

Dan

 

Dan

 

It realy depends on what gauge and type of rail you are going to use. Have you decided yet?

 

For code 100 you will need code 100 roller gauges and perhapps a flangeway gauge (a flat bar which is 1.25mm thick) but not necessary.

 

For code 75, then code 75 roller gauges and again a flangeway gauge may be usefull. You could use a check rail gauge if you were going to use finescale wheels and or going to use the 00SF track standards, but some RTR stocm may not be compatable.

 

When building to 00-SF, EM or P4 etc then you will need the additional gauges, as the standards are much finer. You will not need a 3 point gauge in 00 as the tollarences are not fine enough to need them. Back to back gauges are for wheels and usefull what ever gauge you are working in.

 

As for the V's, yes there are better and more prototypical ways of makeing them, but do you want to spend all that time makeing them to start off with. They are hidden behind the wing rails, have solder on them and covered in paint, so to start with why complicate matters.

 

Start off with something simple, thats easy to make and will get you finishing it reasonably quickly. Make a second and it will be a little better, as you will learn from your mistakes. If you find that trackwork is your forte then invest in extra tools, gauges etc. However if all you have invested in is a couple of roller gauges and you dont get on with it what have you lost, a fiver!

[Donw]

All you need to build trackwork is two track gauges. The rollertype are suitable and a flangeway gauge. The latter is just a piece of metal of the right thickness. However the roller gauge needs to be suitable for the rail you are going to use and the flangeway guide needs to suit the wheels you plan to use ( probably 1mm to suit most propriety 00 stock although 1.25mm might be needed for very old tri-ang at 13.5mm back toback.).

You could make track gauges from small blocks of hardwood if you can plane/sand two faces parallel and exactly 16.5 wide tricky but usuable with different rail thicknesses.

The back to back gauge is used to check the wheels but obviously needs to match the flangeway gauge.

 

I have built trackwork in EM, 2mm, 0 gauge with just two gauges and the flangeway guide. A medium size file, a fine file, a razor saw and a soldering iron. I am not particularly skilled it's just taking a bit of care.

Donw

[BR60103]

Dan: there seem to be 2 prototype frogs. One is the butt joint, which lets you file the rail ends at the actual angle, albeit in both directions. The other type have a cast insert for the pointy bit and the rails come up behind it. The cast insert is at the highest wearing point and is replaceable and cast in a different quality steel.

I don't think I've seen any where the two rails came down to form the point.

[Dan6470]

Dan: there seem to be 2 prototype frogs. One is the butt joint, which lets you file the rail ends at the actual angle, albeit in both directions. The other type have a cast insert for the pointy bit and the rails come up behind it. The cast insert is at the highest wearing point and is replaceable and cast in a different quality steel.

I don't think I've seen any where the two rails came down to form the point.

 

Hi David, I have done a lot of searching, although not necessarily in the right areas;), but have come across this;

 

http://www.handlaidt...m/documents.php

 

From which I have extracted the following photographs;

 

 

 

I had assumed that this was the preferred method of creating the Vs, more so if you had access to the jigs from the EMGS.

 

Dan

[martin_wynne]

Hi Dan,

 

The FastTracks products from Tim Warris are designed for the American market and American-style trackwork. They are not best suited to UK-style track, and especially not for bullhead rail -- which is very much easier to use for model trackbuilding than flat-bottom rail.

 

It is better to follow prototype practice in forming vees with point and splice rails -- you can even "hand" them correctly so that the point rail is in the main road of the turnout.

 

Jigs aren't really needed if you clamp the rails down on a suitable paper template. You can do nearly all the filing after assembling the vee, not before, and this method ensures that you have full-depth solid metal at the nose. You may like to look here:

 

http://85a.co.uk/for...hp?post_id=2078

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Dan6470]

Hello Martin,

 

Thank you for the link. That has most definitely clarified the situation.

 

My subject knowledge has certainly increased in the last week or so:D.

 

Regards.

 

Dan

[Dan6470]

Hi Martin,

 

Just looking at the description for constructing the 'V' and the bend concerns me. How do you bend it, do you cut through the side of the head and foot on one side (position Y on the diagram) and vee the other side of the head and foot (position Z on the diagram) prior to bending,?

 

 

Regards.

 

Dan

[martin_wynne]

Just looking at the description for constructing the 'V' and the bend concerns me. How do you bend it

Hi Dan,

 

The angle is exaggerated in the diagram to make things clear. Bullhead rail is easy to bend. Just by hand with pliers, or this is the best way to get a clean bend:

 

 

 

Flat-bottom rail is more tricky to bend without creating a twist. It's worth making a tiny cut or filed notch each side in the rail foot only, leaving the remaining part of foot the same width as the rail head. It will then bend without twisting.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[modelmaker87]

Hi Dan,

 

Flat-bottom rail is more tricky to bend without creating a twist. It's worth making a tiny cut or filed notch each side in the rail foot only, leaving the remaining part of foot the same width as the rail head. It will then bend without twisting.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin is dead nuts on with his advice here making cuts into the flange. I have made a bunch of turnouts with flat bottom, for me it is no more difficult than making turnouts with bullead. The big difference is purely in the amount of additional filing that has to be carried out. In particular removing the outside of the flat bottom web from the closure rails and doing similar with the inside of the stock rails. It adds at least an hour of time overall onto the build versus the time it takes to build a turnout using bullhead. Other than that, its a snap.

 

Cheers, Tony Sissons

[MikeTrice]

I accept these are N Gauge but there might be something of interest for you here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42746

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=46997

[Dan6470]

Hi,

 

Sorry for taking so long in responding to your comments and suggestions but I've been a little busy in emptying my proposed railway room and have just started the redecorating.

 

Hi Dan,

 

The angle is exaggerated in the diagram to make things clear. Bullhead rail is easy to bend. Just by hand with pliers, or this is the best way to get a clean bend:

 

 

 

 

Flat-bottom rail is more tricky to bend without creating a twist. It's worth making a tiny cut or filed notch each side in the rail foot only, leaving the remaining part of foot the same width as the rail head. It will then bend without twisting.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks for the explanation Martin, it is certainly clear now. Also I've been looking into the cost of rewheeling my loco's so that I could use code 75 bullhead but the cost is prohibitive. So it seems that I must use code 100 track which I understand is flat bottom track. In my mind this causes a problem. I am aware that you can purchase code 100 rails and construct turnouts from that using the SMP or C+L templates (templot also looks quite interesting - is there a trial SW available?) but what do I do with regard to the normal "ready made" track work? I don't particularly want to use Peco HO trackwork. What do you suggest?

 

 

Martin is dead nuts on with his advice here making cuts into the flange. I have made a bunch of turnouts with flat bottom, for me it is no more difficult than making turnouts with bullead. The big difference is purely in the amount of additional filing that has to be carried out. In particular removing the outside of the flat bottom web from the closure rails and doing similar with the inside of the stock rails. It adds at least an hour of time overall onto the build versus the time it takes to build a turnout using bullhead. Other than that, its a snap.

 

Cheers, Tony Sissons

 

Hi Tony, thanks for your comment. Since you have built turnouts using FB, perhaps you can help with the question that I've put to Martin with regard to the ready made track.

 

I accept these are N Gauge but there might be something of interest for you here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co....php?f=8&t=42746

 

http://www.rmweb.co....php?f=8&t=46997

 

Hi Mike, thank you for the links, very very informative. I particularly like the filing jigs that you constructed using butt hinges. I'm sure that a lot of your suggestions can be used in the construction of 00 gauge turnouts.

 

 

I've also spent a lot of time on the web looking at other layouts and the type of track used together with the method of construction with regard to turnouts. I came across one site. A model of Stafford, built by Harry Howell in Sydney, New South Wales, http://www.mrol.com..../Stafford.aspx. It seems that Stafford was built using SMP code 70 (75?) but they had a lot of problems due to the flanges of Lima and Hornby driving wheels touching the sleepers and causing a loss of electrical pick-up resulting in dirty wheels. To resolve this they chose to relay all the track with code 100. So it seems that, since all my loco's and rolling stock are in the 40 to 50 age group, it is perhaps clear that I should stay with the code 100. All I need to do is ensure that the sleepers that I use for the turnouts match those used on the normal "ready made" track. I understand that with Peco, their sleepers are 30x3mm .... problems, problems!

 

 

Dan

[martin_wynne]

Hi Dan,

 

As an alternative to code 100 flat-bottom rail, you could try turnout construction using the code 87 bullhead rail which is available from the S Scale Model Railway Society. See:

 

http://www.s-scale.org.uk/track.htm

 

This would allow the use of the deeper old wheel flanges without the extra difficulty of working with flat-bottom rail.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Dan6470]

Hi Dan,

 

As an alternative to code 100 flat-bottom rail, you could try turnout construction using the code 87 bullhead rail which is available from the S Scale Model Railway Society. See:

 

http://www.s-scale.org.uk/track.htm

 

This would allow the use of the deeper old wheel flanges without the extra difficulty of working with flat-bottom rail.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I'll check that out Martin. Thanks for the link.

 

Dan