William's Workbench - LBSCR, LC&DR & SER in 4mm, and Gauge 1

[41516]

I'm having a guess, but from the moulded handrails, underframe and 'armour plate' above the ducket, it's one of the old Hornby models.

 

Comparison here with a upgraded AIrfix/Dapol van which is widely regarded as accurate (although the ducket is a ~1mm low).

 

 

Chassis completely inaccurate, too short overall with LNER fitted wagon style brakes and only one footboard (same chassis as the 4-wheel coaches IIRC)

 

The body is the right height and length, but overwide and the detail all very chunky. The panel over the ducket some vans had in later life is rather thick, moulded 'blocks' where the print details goes, etc.

 

 

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Ah, a useful donor for wheels in that case, then? :)

[41516]

I'd say so. Everything else can be scrubbed up.  The AIrfix 5-plank can be re-chassied to make a nice LMS D1895 open.  Nothing really wrong with the old Airfix cattle wagon, tidy up the door hinges and replace the opening bars.  

 

The 3H (or possibly Kirk - if they have a steel weight on the chassis, 3H) LNER vans can be finished off well - be warned either will have brittle plastic at this point.   Not sure on the parentage of the mineral wagon from a distance.

[hayfield]

On 25/09/2022 at 17:33, Lacathedrale said:

Forgive me father for I have sinned

 

 

I have sinned greatly:

 

 

In my defence, the wagons were being sold for less than the price of the replacement axles.

 

Yes, the axles. Those P4 axles. 

 

I have sinned.

 

William

 

Firstly it was great to see you at the weekend

 

What a sensible start, buy something ready converted is such a good idea when starting out in a new gauge. Being able to test out your own hand built track is so useful. If you have a spare etched chassis make it up as a rolling chassis. I saw Norman Solomon demonstrating track building and he had an 0-6-0 rolling (un-powered) chassis and demonstrated the turnout he was building simply by putting the chassis on the track and slightly lifting one end of the building board so the loco slowly moved through the crossing.

 

Just keep an eye open on our favourite auction site locos crop up every now and again

[Lacathedrale]

Thanks John, it was good to finally put a face to a name too. I've got timbers laid so now just to put your tandem advice into practise...

[hayfield]

51 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thanks John, it was good to finally put a face to a name too. I've got timbers laid so now just to put your tandem advice into practise...

 

 

Nothing like jumping in at the deep end then !!!

[Lacathedrale]

My wife has been down for the count with a sore tooth (and forthcoming root canal) and our trip to the NYMR is cancelled. By way of solace I've had a fairly productive evening listening to an audiobook and cracking out some common crossings.

 

Here are the vees required for my little test idea - a pair of 1:8's (middle) and a 1:7, 1:9 and 1:10 which form the single sided tandem I'd like to try out:

 

 

Tonight was also my first time using the EMGS common crossing assembly jig as pictured on an earlier page:

 

 

Does anyone have a rule of thumb of where the tip of the rail should lay in the filing jig so it doesn't mushroom and stretch-over while filing?

 

I know @hayfield doesn't file and bend before filing again, but I thought I'd give it a shot. I often ended up with a concave curve instead of a straight line when tweaking and it takes ages to straighten - is there an easy solution @Martin Wynne?

 

I've not yet had a chance to test these subassemblies, but I'm looking forward to it :) 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Having a bit of a mare with this:

 

 

This common crossing is 1:7, but when i lay a 1:7 vee onto the plan, it looks very out:

 

 

Since this vee leads directly into the wing rail for the 1:10 common crossing, I'm a little worried that just using chairs to pin the 1:7 vee rails into the correct position is going to end up in tears...

[Southwich]

14 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Having a bit of a mare with this:

 

 

This common crossing is 1:7, but when i lay a 1:7 vee onto the plan, it looks very out:

 

 

Since this vee leads directly into the wing rail for the 1:10 common crossing, I'm a little worried that just using chairs to pin the 1:7 vee rails into the correct position is going to end up in tears...

Some really nice work going on here - although very much out of my area of usual interest your modelling is of an exceptional standard!

 

Regarding the issue on the point, I’ve had a similar issue over the past few months laying my P4 points. This may not help but I’d suggest testing your printer settings, as I found a lot of the templates I printed were massively under scale. I ended up printing at about 104% to ensure the common crossings accurately fitted over the top of the Templot. Alternatively you could get it etched into ply like I did which makes things a lot easier!

 

Keep up the good work!

 

Will

[Izzy]

24 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Having a bit of a mare with this:

 

 

This common crossing is 1:7, but when i lay a 1:7 vee onto the plan, it looks very out:

 

 

Since this vee leads directly into the wing rail for the 1:10 common crossing, I'm a little worried that just using chairs to pin the 1:7 vee rails into the correct position is going to end up in tears...

Would it be that the crossing is curvilinear rather than straight? This is what it appears in the photo although I wonder if camera/lens distortion is also in play here. So although it’s 1:7 at the actual centre of the crossing past the wing rails it curves away. This is what I take from the top stock rail.

 

Bob

[Siberian Snooper]

3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Having a bit of a mare with this:

 

 

This common crossing is 1:7, but when i lay a 1:7 vee onto the plan, it looks very out:

 

 

Since this vee leads directly into the wing rail for the 1:10 common crossing, I'm a little worried that just using chairs to pin the 1:7 vee rails into the correct position is going to end up in tears...

 

What type of V crossing is the common crossing? I think that you either have a generic or curviform crossing on the template and you have built a straight V.

 

If you select the template in Templot, it should give you chapter and verse, which type of V crossing your template is, in the information box, usually top left on the screen, you may need to pull the borders out to see the information.

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Having a bit of a mare with this:

 

 

This common crossing is 1:7, but when i lay a 1:7 vee onto the plan, it looks very out:

 

 

Since this vee leads directly into the wing rail for the 1:10 common crossing, I'm a little worried that just using chairs to pin the 1:7 vee rails into the correct position is going to end up in tears...

 

Hi William,

 

A couple of points:

 

1. That vee nose is too sharp. It needs blunting back to prototype blunt nose dimensions so that you can move it forward on the timber:

 

 

The prototype width of the nose is 3/4". That scales to 0.25mm or 10 thou in 4mm/ft scale.

 

To position an assembled vee on a template, look at where the vee rails separate, and align that location with the template markings. It's helpful if you don't fill the vee with too much solder -- which looks unprototypical anyway.

 

For a 1:7 bullhead vee in 4mm/ft scale, the distance from that location to the blunt nose is 11mm (assuming the rail head is the correct scale width), which may help in blunting the nose by the correct amount.

 

p.s. it is always helpful to print a duplicate template, so that you can refer to details which are obscured by the timbers.

 

 

2. The 1:7 angle applies only over the length of the vee splice, as shown on the template:

 

 

It is a curviform-pattern vee, which means that beyond the splice the rails curve away from each other and the angle changes. Do not expect the chairs to curve the rail, pre-form the curve in the rail before installing it.

 

More about curviform V-crossings in this video:

 

https://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=pu2F-wveux5-EWGYuqPd3g2

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited October 17, 2022 by martin_wynne
p.s. added

[Lacathedrale]

4 hours ago, Southwich said:

Some really nice work going on here - although very much out of my area of usual interest your modelling is of an exceptional standard!

 

 

Oh well I'm not sure about that but thank you very much. My scaling is bang on 18.83mm gauge so I don't think it's that, but as @Izzy, @Siberian Snooper and @martin_wynne have pointed out - it's a curviform vee. Thankfully that just means bending the rail gently (thanks Martin!)

 

Speaking of blunting the vee - not a bad shout, I'll check that out shortly. I have a 1:10, 1:9, two 1:8's and 1:7  so I guess there's alot to check out. Annoyingly I've already assembled the 1:8's with wing rails (three times, one of the was accidentally putting the 1:8 wing rails on the 1:9 vee)

[hayfield]

6 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Having a bit of a mare with this:

 

 

This common crossing is 1:7, but when i lay a 1:7 vee onto the plan, it looks very out:

 

 

Since this vee leads directly into the wing rail for the 1:10 common crossing, I'm a little worried that just using chairs to pin the 1:7 vee rails into the correct position is going to end up in tears...

 

 

X marks the spot for the tip, then you file a blunt nose back to the timber, plus the first Vee is curviform. Have you checked the scaling of the printing as Templot requests ?

[Lacathedrale]

The vee blunted puts it in the correct place and with a little curve of the vee it sits well. I also blunted the 1:10 and 1:9 vees off which form the rest of the tandem. 

 

Here's the progress today:

 

The flangeway gauge passes through everything but it's a little tight. Honestly, it's only cost me an evening's work so if I have to re-work things that's OK.  The components are of course just loosely laid for now!

 

I believe the last step is for this fabrication is to get the wing rails onto the 1:7 vee pictured above, and then it's about getting it laid down with chairs. My minimum radius is 5' and so there's a bit of leeway if I sod up the placement and end up with a sharper angle somewhere, but my understanding for the steps is as follows:

1. Ignore the two 1:8 crossover turnouts on the outside for now
2. Lay the middle-top vee subassembly into position
3. Lay the straight stock rail + first checkrail (using 0.68mm checkrail chairs) gauged off the middle vee using a check rail gauge
4. Lay the bottom vee subassembly in position using a check gauge off the second checkrail and visual alignment of the bottom-vee-wingrail and middle-vee-running-rail

Is that about right?

[t-b-g]

I know you say that the components are just laid loosely at the moment but it does appear to me the all your tips of your crossing noses are in mid air and not resting on a sleeper as they should. If you shuffle them along to be in the correct relationship to a sleeper, then the bends in your wing rails will not be in the correct place.

 

So something doesn't look quite right to my eyes.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

I set the bends in the wing rails relative to the vee using the EMGS jig and the flangeway gauge, rather than via the drawing. As I said they are a little tight so maybe that explains it? I've re-laid them more closely to where they'll end up and it looks OK to me, to my unedcuated eye?

 

 

It's bloody tough photographing long lengths of metal against a white/black background isn't it? :)

 

Strange that Exactoscale has nothing at all for 1:9 switches, although 1:8 and 1:10 are described in their chair position diagrams...

[t-b-g]

24 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I set the bends in the wing rails relative to the vee using the EMGS jig and the flangeway gauge, rather than via the drawing. As I said they are a little tight so maybe that explains it? I've re-laid them more closely to where they'll end up and it looks OK to me, to my unedcuated eye?

 

 

It's bloody tough photographing long lengths of metal against a white/black background isn't it? :)

 

Strange that Exactoscale has nothing at all for 1:9 switches, although 1:8 and 1:10 are described in their chair position diagrams...

 

It is hard to tell when the rails are not in the correct place on the drawing but they don't fill me with confidence.

 

If you don't have much experience with building P4 track, then I would be tempted to make a simple turnout first and make sure that works perfectly before you try the more complex stuff.

 

Three ways/tandems are tricky for me in EM even after building track for 40 plus years. You have to get the relationship between so many bits of rail just right. That applies even more in P4.

[martin_wynne]

16 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

It is hard to tell when the rails are not in the correct place on the drawing

 

It's a good idea to print a copy of the template on tracing paper. You can lay it on the rail tops to check the rail alignments:

 

 

The extent of the knuckle bend radius, and the centre of it, is marked across between the rails.

 

You can change the line thicknesses, colours and infill styles on the output menu, to get the best results on tracing paper.

 

Ordinary A4 school tracing paper will feed ok on most inkjet printers if you load only one sheet at a time in front of the ordinary paper.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

It's a good idea to print a copy of the template on tracing paper. You can lay it on the rail tops to check the rail alignments:

 

 

The extent of the knuckle bend radius, and the centre of it, is marked across between the rails.

 

You can change the line thicknesses, colours and infill styles on the output menu, to get the best results on tracing paper.

 

Ordinary A4 school tracing paper will feed ok on most inkjet printers if you load only one sheet at a time in front of the ordinary paper.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

An interesting idea Martin and not one I had thought of. In truth, I don't really struggle with building points from your Templot plans. I find it pretty straightforward but then again, I have built many hundreds over the years. It may well help a relative novice, who is struggling to judge the rail positions.

 

I was more concerned that William was asking if what he was doing was looking OK and I find it hard to say. I have to try to imagine the crossings being moved slightly so that they are over their correct positions on the plan.

 

To me, the positions of the bends and the ends of the wingrails don't appear correct compared to what I can see of the drawing underneath but if the crossing nose was in exactly the right place it would give me a better idea.

[hayfield]

I use Hobby Craft "Art tracing paper" at 90gsm is quite thick

 

I remember photo copying / printing on plastic sheet for use on overhead projection, I guess this may now be old school

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/123949546417

[Lacathedrale]

Argh, I can't believe it - I soldered the 1:10 vee in upside down, only noticed when I went to slide the chairs on. Time to put this in the proving drawer for a while, I don't want to get cross! 

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Argh, I can't believe it - I soldered the 1:10 vee in upside down, only noticed when I went to slide the chairs on. Time to put this in the proving drawer for a while, I don't want to get cross! 

 

A Tip 

 

I mark with a felt pen on top of the rail head at both ends, 2 or 3mm is all that is necessary

[Lacathedrale]

Thanks John, I did that with 2mmFS but I thought I was smarter than that for 4mm :)

 

@t-b-g I built a B7 in P4 in the spring and it worked really well, though admittedly that was using functional chairs throughout, which I can't really get away with on this one I don't think...

[Izzy]

23 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

The vee blunted puts it in the correct place and with a little curve of the vee it sits well. I also blunted the 1:10 and 1:9 vees off which form the rest of the tandem. 

 

Here's the progress today:

 

The flangeway gauge passes through everything but it's a little tight. Honestly, it's only cost me an evening's work so if I have to re-work things that's OK.  The components are of course just loosely laid for now!

 

I believe the last step is for this fabrication is to get the wing rails onto the 1:7 vee pictured above, and then it's about getting it laid down with chairs. My minimum radius is 5' and so there's a bit of leeway if I sod up the placement and end up with a sharper angle somewhere, but my understanding for the steps is as follows:

1. Ignore the two 1:8 crossover turnouts on the outside for now
2. Lay the middle-top vee subassembly into position
3. Lay the straight stock rail + first checkrail (using 0.68mm checkrail chairs) gauged off the middle vee using a check rail gauge
4. Lay the bottom vee subassembly in position using a check gauge off the second checkrail and visual alignment of the bottom-vee-wingrail and middle-vee-running-rail

Is that about right?

 

Hi William,

 

I've been fiddling around with P4 track using functional chairs for a few years now and this is the order I would suggest you tackle this bit of pointwork.

 

Lay the Red V, followed by the Blue V, and then the Green. Then add the Yellow rails and the rest as they come.

 

 

I do it in this basic order because before Templot arrived there were only a few basic point templates and most bespoke work meant just drawing basic rails guides and going from there using gauges.

 

Bob