New range of simple to assemble 00/EM gauge pointwork kits - EM B7 Prototype - First Look

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Mine lasts more than twice!;

 

Mike.

[AndyID]

3 hours ago, NFWEM57 said:

Trawling through RMWeb I noticed this picture of a 'set' making tool on an upload by Hayfield on his workbench thread; 28 Mar 21  Apparently it can be used twice before it is a write off..!

 

I am surprised nobody has made a steel one, or am I missing something?  Have 2 small pieces of 0.2mm stainless steel on the way to experiment.  I assume it will still be possible to slide the joggle through Wayne's new product (inserting at the toe end).

 

However, given that Wayne's product works as is I will probably only use it on scratch build.

 

Patrick

 

Hi Patrick,

 

That's a Joggle Jig. A set is just a single bend.

 

Cheers,

Andy

[NFWEM57]

33 minutes ago, AndyID said:

 

Hi Patrick,

 

That's a Joggle Jig. A set is just a single bend.

 

Cheers,

Andy

Andy,

 

Thanks. 

 

Patrick

[Izzy]

For those for whom such things are important I believe it was only really the GWR that used joggles to any great extent. I understand their downside is the chance of the leading edge of the flange catching them in the trailing direction. In model terms I think this mostly likely with wheel tread profiles with little or no root radius. Many, like the standard NMRA profile, use quite generous root radius which keeps the bulk of the flange well away from the side of the rail.

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, AndyID said:

That's a Joggle Jig. A set is just a single bend.

 

 

Just to add to that, here's a diagram:

 

 

Here's what a set looks like on the prototype:

 

 

A set is such a simple thing to do, and makes such a massive difference to the ease of making a working switch, that it really is a crying shame that Wayne has decided not to include a set in his design. It will lead to explanations such as this having to be repeated over and over again for years. I've been posting this stuff for 20 years or more already. Here's the info which has been on the Templot web site all that time:

 

 https://85a.uk/templot/companion/real_track.php#planing_types

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[NFWEM57]

36 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Just to add to that, here's a diagram:

 

 

Here's what a set looks like on the prototype:

 

 

A set is such a simple thing to do, and makes such a massive difference to the ease of making a working switch, that it really is a crying shame that Wayne has decided not to include a set in his design. It will lead to explanations such as this having to be repeated over and over again for years. I've been posting this stuff for 20 years or more already. Here's the info which has been on the Templot web site all that time:

 

 https://85a.uk/templot/companion/real_track.php#planing_types

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Martin,

 

Thank you for all your effort and sharing of your deep specialist knowledge over many years and, critically, for keeping the school open for the 2021 intake...!

 

As I suggested earlier in this thread, perhaps Wayne would have an explanation of the set on his his website with a link on the product.

 

Patrick

[Jack P]

This is extremely useful, Until the above diagram was posted I had no idea what a set was. 

 

What is the generally accepted way of forming the set when constructing points?

[NFWEM57]

1 hour ago, Jack P said:

This is extremely useful, Until the above diagram was posted I had no idea what a set was. 

 

What is the generally accepted way of forming the set when constructing points?

Mike (enterprisingwestern) illustrated his tool of choice earlier in the thread but I think I will develop something with a slightly lighter touch for scratch building.

 

On a more serious note, what is needed is a book (soft or hard) which pulls all the pearls of wisdom , standards, tools and techniques together in one place.   I have a spreadsheet full of the standards, calculation etc. But pictures paint a thousand words.

 

Patrick

Edited April 4, 2021 by NFWEM57
typo

[KeithHC]

Patrick there are several books around that do track building. I have an old copy of Trax 2 by Jeff Geary and John Shaw the design CD is long gone but the book is full of lots of useful information. A couple of others I have seen and heard about is Iain Rice Making Tracks and also a book by the 2mm association which is meant to be very good. But I am still a ham fisted modeller and dream of all that wonderful track work made by the experts out there(John).

 

Keith

Edited April 4, 2021 by KeithHC
Typo

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, Jack P said:

This is extremely useful, Until the above diagram was posted I had no idea what a set was. 

 

What is the generally accepted way of forming the set when constructing points?

 

The kit allows a "set" to be used if required. It is both very well designed and seemingly adaptable

[Siberian Snooper]

2 hours ago, Jack P said:

This is extremely useful, Until the above diagram was posted I had no idea what a set was. 

 

What is the generally accepted way of forming the set when constructing points?

 

I stick the rail in a vise and give it a tweak with my thumb. Other methods are available.

 

 

[NFWEM57]

1 hour ago, KeithHC said:

Patrick there are several books around that do track building. I have an old copy of Trax 2 by Jeff Geary and John Shaw the design CD is long gone but the book is full of lots of useful information. A couple of others I have seen and heard about is Iain Rice Making Tracks and also a book by the 2mm association which is meant to be very good. But I am still a ham fisted modeller and dream of all that wonderful track work made by the experts out(John).

 

Keith

Hi Keith,

 

I have several including the 2mm Association one, an approach to building finescale track in 4mm by Iain Rice, GWR Switch and Crossing Practice by David Smith plus the EMGS manual sheets.  All give standard dimensions etc, but the pearl of wisdom about back to back and face to face for different manufacturers wheels is, for obvious reasons, not in there.   But it was the information that Martin uploaded in this thread on Jan 18th and Jan 30th that allowed me to put 2 and 2 together for the range of conversions I am undertaking.

 

For example, i have a collection of Tring/Hornby R758 Hymeks for conversion to DCC/running Lights and the fitting of finer scale wheels before selling on.   The 9/64" to 1/8" stub axles and final gear train are one mould.  I have a few 9/64th to 2mm stub axles from the EMGS and intend to separate the gear wheel and fit the new axle; yes it is a lathe job.  The wheels I have chosen to use are Hornby 12.6mm because they are cheap and match the (incorrect ) size of the wheels already fitted.  They are 2.6mm thick with a flange of 0.7mmm and using Martin's empirical summary I have been able to work out what B2B and F2F I need to aim for and therefore how much to trim back the 9/64" stub axles to accommodate the Hornby wheels for EM and OO.   All I do is put in the wheel thickness, flange thickness and amount of insulating bush protrusion at the rear of the wheel and my spreadsheet does the rest.

 

I will also be able to make new stub axles for a recent factory weathered Bachman 4MT and retain the original wheels.  Sadly the 'off road' wheels on a modern Hornby King will have to be replaced; way too fat.  The 5MT I showed in my final videos had wheels 2.9mm thick with 0.8mm flanges and I ended up with 16.3mm B2B and 22.1mm F2F.  It just about made it for the video but the Alan Gibson wheels on new axles will be going on shortly using the existing motion gear.

 

So, thank you Martin.  Standards are fine but It is this sort of information that is critical to using track built to the those standards.

 

All the best,

 

Patrick

Edited April 4, 2021 by NFWEM57

[RBAGE]

A pair of pliers will do the trick.

Mark the position of the end of the switch blade, hold the pliers at that position and give the rail a gentle tweek. The first tweek is generally too much so just put the bend in the jaws of the pliers and gentle squeeze as if you are trying to straighten the bend. Just continue squeeze and check until you get a good closure with the switch blade.

[martin_wynne]

I have posted this diagram so many times over the years it is nearly worn out:

 

 

It has the advantage of making a perfectly symmetrical bend, more sharply located than is possible with pliers and fingers. But any method is better than no set at all.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

4 hours ago, Jack P said:

This is extremely useful, Until the above diagram was posted I had no idea what a set was.

 

 

Hi Jack,

 

This is the problem. Countless videos, books and articles about track building have been written over the years without any mention of putting a set in the diverging stock rail. And now we have some more instructions which don't mention it. How are folks supposed to know about it?

 

But all experienced track builders put a set in their stock rails, for the simple reasons that it is a) necessary and b) clearly shown on the prototype drawings, and in photographs.

 

Some builders prefer to use joggles, but they are tricky to do accurately, unlike the simplicity of making a set bend on one side only.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

 

A simple little etching from the EMGS, they are quite cheap and I must buy a few more

[Wayne Kinney]

32 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

the simple reasons that it is a) necessary

By necessary, do you mean that my turnouts are not functioning without the set? I can assure you that the switch is running very smoothly.

 

Happy Easter Everybody!!!!

[RBAGE]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Jack,

 

This is the problem. Countless videos, books and articles about track building have been written over the years without any mention of putting a set in the diverging stock rail. And now we have some more instructions which don't mention it. How are folks supposed to know about it?

 

But all experienced track builders put a set in their stock rails, for the simple reasons that it is a) necessary and b) clearly shown on the prototype drawings, and in photographs.

 

Some builders prefer to use joggles, but they are tricky to do accurately, unlike the simplicity of making a set bend on one side only.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

I was under the impression that the set was on the curved rail while, in the case of the GWR, a goggle was on the straight rail. I suppose they both do the same job but in a different way and at different parts of the turnout. 

 

[martin_wynne]

16 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

By necessary, do you mean that my turnouts are not functioning without the set? I can assure you that the switch is running very smoothly.

 

 

Hi Wayne,

 

I meant that if the switch blades are machined to the prototype dimensions, they cannot maintain the gauge through the switch and seat properly against a stock rail which is not set.

 

They can instead be given longer and thinner planing than the prototype, but are then likely to need significantly over-scale opening at the tip to ensure a full flangeway clearance all along.

 

I don't doubt that your turnouts work fine. It just seems to me that having produced the best looking prototypical V-crossings I have ever seen, more detailed than many hand-built crossings, it is a great shame to have departed from prototype designs for the switch. John says a set is optional, but I don't understand how that can be. The switch can't be correctly to gauge for both options using the same switch blades.

 

You have called your turnout a B-7. But without a set in the stock rail it is not a model of a real B switch, so to be pedantic that's a misleading product description. You should be calling it simply a 1:7 turnout. 

 

What all this boils down to is that so many modellers don't regard their track as being an actual model of any prototype. Hence Peco Streamline and the rest. Your new kits were an opportunity to change that, and it's a great disappointment that you haven't followed through with a full prototypical design. It's not as if making one simple bend in one rail is in any way difficult, and making bends in the rail is already required in the kit for the check rails.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Siberian Snooper]

22 minutes ago, RBAGE said:

I was under the impression that the set was on the curved rail while, in the case of the GWR, a goggle was on the straight rail. I suppose they both do the same job but in a different way and at different parts of the turnout. 

 

GW joggle both rails, but the turnout rail also has the set. The joggle allows a slightly thicker switch blade and the tip is protected by the joggle in the facing direction.

 

 

[martin_wynne]

23 minutes ago, RBAGE said:

I was under the impression that the set was on the curved rail while, in the case of the GWR, a goggle was on the straight rail. I suppose they both do the same job but in a different way and at different parts of the turnout.

 

No, that's not right.

 

If the turnout uses under-cut switches, it has a set bend in the curved stock rail only, and the straight stock rail is plain rail.

 

OR

 

If the turnout uses straight-cut switches, it has a joggle in both stock rails.

 

It is one option or the other.

 

The GWR used joggles for all their turnouts. Other companies used joggles only for facing turnouts in main running lines, and not always.

 

Joggles are are not relevant to these new kits, and are not supported in them.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

53 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

You have called your turnout a B-7. But without a set in the stock rail it is not a model of a real B switch, so to be pedantic that's a misleading product description. You should be calling it simply a 1:7 turnout. 

Thanks Martin for your reply.

 

My kit is a model of a B7, representing a real life B7.

 

A prototypical B7 has a gauge of 18.83mm in 4mm scale, flange ways of 0.58mm in 4mm scale and with stretcher bars joining the switch blades.

 

But of course my turnout kits do not feature any of the above because it is all a compromise and a representation of the real thing.

 

My loco's wheels have overscale treads and outside valve gear, with larger non prototypical couplings...etc.

 

My Airfix model of the Supermarine Spitfire doesn't have actual rubber wheels or a working engine in it. But I don't feel it's misleading of them calling it 'Supermarine Spitfire'.

 

We are modelling and everything is a compromise, I am not claiming my kits to be exact S4!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Wayne Kinney

[RBAGE]

3 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks Martin for your reply.

 

My kit is a model of a B7, representing a real life B7.

 

A prototypical B7 has a gauge of 18.83mm in 4mm scale, flange ways of 0.58mm in 4mm scale and with stretcher bars joining the switch blades.

 

But of course my turnout kits do not feature any of the above because it is all a compromise and a representation of the real thing.

 

My loco's tires have overscale wheels and outside valve gear, with larger non prototypical couplings...etc.

 

We are modelling and everything is a compromise, I am not claiming my kits to be exact S4!

 

 

 

 

We need to accept that all we are doing is building an impression of a railway. Even in S4 there are compromises. 

We have to constantly suspend disbelief. If you product allows us to produce convincing track component which operate reliably so that we can convince ourselves we have a railway and are built in a fraction of the time of to build from scratch, most people will be more than happy to get on board. 

You can't please everyone all the time.

I always apply a set to points and if the kits allow this, great. If not, I won't lose any sleep.

Thanks for your efforts.

Can't wait.

[martin_wynne]

40 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

But of course my turnout kits do not feature any of the above because it is all a compromise and a representation of the real thing.

 

 

That's the infamous "missing handrails" defence:

 

"There is no need for a 00 locomotive to have the correct handrails, because the distance between the wheels is wrong."

 

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

I dread what people will think when my 'point rodding' kits turn out to be cosmetic additions only, and don't actually function...LOL