Making a start.

[Jayk]

   With a bit of free time over Easter I was able to finally sit down and have a wrestle with Templot. I'd been through some of the VAG videos on the subject but I learn better from doing rather than listening, a try -> fail -> look it up -> repeat sort of process. I had an old piece of conti-board spare that I had framed during the expected power outage when we had the last storm. It's only 95cm x 23cm but I figured that this is enough for a small test track / layout to fiddle about on and learn the process.

 

 

   I wanted something that would be a good test and probably tougher than what I would use on a "proper" layout. So I went with A5 turnouts and 15" radius curves. I don't anticipate making any long wheel-base stock, the majority will likely end up being bogie based and likely only twin axle. I have the longer section of curve to the left for checking running on a curve as well as the hard reverse curve in the middle. The crossover turnouts both have curved frogs whilst the other two have straight frogs - partly this was to use options within Templot. The reverse curve was created by extending the exit road so that the curvature is consistent with the turnout and then pasting a copy rotated 180 degrees on the other side. So no easement, just a straight swap from right to left curvature. Not advised, I know, but if things can handle it they'll probably handle most anything else.

 

   I did print a second copy of each of the turnouts so that I can build those separately and then place them rather than trying to build them directly on to here.

 

-Jayk

[Lacathedrale]

Are you going to be building soldered PCB construction, soldered and chaired construction, hybrid with easitrak, or easitrak?

 

I found that building  turnout on a separate, thick board with everything glued with Evostik glue stick worked best, keeping long tails of rail hanging off to be cut back - then soaked with water to release and fixed to the layout. I had a separate copy of the turnout printed out to firm up position of the various features without having to peek through ties and rails to establish their position!

[Jayk]

6 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Are you going to be building soldered PCB construction, soldered and chaired construction, hybrid with easitrak, or easitrak?

 

I found that building  turnout on a separate, thick board with everything glued with Evostik glue stick worked best, keeping long tails of rail hanging off to be cut back - then soaked with water to release and fixed to the layout. I had a separate copy of the turnout printed out to firm up position of the various features without having to peek through ties and rails to establish their position!

 

 Yes! Soldered PCB construction but maybe hybrid would be the best way to describe it. I'm aiming for something that represents concrete sleepered track but with what those little clip things that look like part of an industrial scale paperclip. So the idea is to use chair plates from I believe the Versaline range but to forgo etched chairs and just solder the rail to these.

   I realise that I won't get the sloped profile of the concrete sleepers but the easitrak sleepers use chairs which don't match with what I'm after - also the lack of building, which I may start regretting.

 

   From the research I did do I think I'm going with a similar approach to the construction of the turnouts. I have a second piece of conti-board to which I will attach the second copy of a turnout with tape, then pritt-stic the sleepers to it. I'm intending to use pritt-stic as I think that will be easier to release them. I'm also planning on using one of the sleepers as the mechanism for moving the blades so will cut out that sleeper from the template so that it sits slightly lower than the others to ease movement. I'm toying with the idea of a third copy for avoiding peeking through the sleepers or even having details obscured by them as you suggest, however it seems wasteful when I will have an un-obstructed view of the turnout on the layout board.

 

---

 

 

   I did manage to get almost all of the required sleepers glued down using pva. One of the problems with being new to Templot is that I wasn't able to get the sleepers exactly how I would want them on the reverse curve and the lowest left siding. I decided it would just be easier to use the generated locations as a guide. I'm also going to be using flat-bottom rail rather than bullhead as it is more appropriate to my interests. This is why the rails may look rather thick, it's showing the limits of the foot.

 

   I've also cut through the cardboard layering I used to get past the horrible finish on the board to allow for wire in tube operation of the turnouts. I'd really like to have these operated with a motor so that there is a slower motion and had looked in to using servo's as I could also tie this in with messing around with a raspberry pi for control. However I've seen comment that the servos perform a full travel motion which I don't remember from my time with RC aircraft so it's definitely a "for the future" line of investigation. For the moment I intend to stick with the good old standby of the slide switch.

   I think the next move is to start on a turnout, I could add all the chair plates for the plain track but at the moment all my soldering has been done using slivers cut from a normal reel of solder and halved or quartered as required. However, with circa 400 sleepers to place 2 chair plates on I'm thinking it might be best for my sanity to grab a bottle of those little solder balls before proceeding.

 

-Jayk

[nick_bastable]

interesting idea although you may be limiting yourself with the radius ( my B7 points cause problems with some of my 0-6-0 ) although I have known master builders get away with it

 

If your at the expo pop bye and say hello

 

Nick B

[Klaus ojo]

I don´t know...

if it does help you at the stage you already have proceeded: To represent the plates (or rail clips respectively) I´ve used the etched standard chairs with FB rail (1-147, intended  rather for bullhead rail I think). I think it does a nice representation of the real thing if you do not look to close. Although being more decent the Versaline plates had a tendency to slip aside when I tried to solder them. With the FB I´ve stringed the bent chairs to the rail like beads and have soldered them to the rail using solder paste and without tinning first.

yours   Klaus

[Caley Jim]

3 hours ago, Jayk said:

I'm also planning on using one of the sleepers as the mechanism for moving the blades so will cut out that sleeper from the template so that it sits slightly lower than the others to ease movement.

One word of warning.  I did this on my first layout, 'Connerburn', but found after a while that I was getting switches coming adrift from the 'moving sleeper'.  I put this down to the joint being stressed by the slight flexing with each movement.  Admittedly it was a very thin joint as I was using the old plain rail and it might be less of a problem with FB.  I reinforced the joint with a tiny piece of shim bent to an 'L', but on a subsequent test track I built I attached the rail to the sleeper with a 'Z' shaped piece of wire to give some flexibility.

 

Jim

[Jayk]

2 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

interesting idea although you may be limiting yourself with the radius ( my B7 points cause problems with some of my 0-6-0 ) although I have known master builders get away with it

 

If your at the expo pop bye and say hello

 

   Yes, the turnouts and curves are intentionally on the tight side. I know that the minimum recommended radius is 24" and I'm well below that, I also saw in the handbook that I should also be using gauge widening of 0.1mm. I couldn't find where I could include this via Templot (I'm assuming it's there and I just haven't got familiar enough with it yet) so I'm definitely expecting issues. The bright side is that the BR brake van etch (2-509) will / should be the longest wheelbase item that I need to contend with at 16' other non-bogie freight would be 16T Minerals at 9' and probably some 15' permanent way things. The vast majority of stock (of which I have none so far 😄 ) will be bogie based. Multiple Units for passenger stock preferably some of the mk2 coach based stuff, 100T tanks and 60' container wagons for freight. The slightly larger concern would be how a class 47 would handle it as the longest wheelbase Co-Co. While the bogie wheelbase for it is 14'6" in total and this is below that of other stock the fact there is the intermediate axle is where I expect the problem to be generated.

 

 

2 hours ago, Klaus ojo said:

I don´t know...

if it does help you at the stage you already have proceeded: To represent the plates (or rail clips respectively) I´ve used the etched standard chairs with FB rail (1-147, intended  rather for bullhead rail I think). I think it does a nice representation of the real thing if you do not look to close. Although being more decent the Versaline plates had a tendency to slip aside when I tried to solder them. With the FB I´ve stringed the bent chairs to the rail like beads and have soldered them to the rail using solder paste and without tinning first.

 

   Ah interesting! I did look at those ones but was unsure as to how it all went together especially with the chair folding jig that seems to accompany it. It appears I was somewhat mistaken in how it all worked. You image certainly shows something very different to what I was imagining. I think the correct name for the clips I'm thinking of are Pandrol Clips. It's also great to know that these work with FB rail, although I hadn't got as far as worrying about that when I was looking through the options.

   Your method of attachment seems simpler as well, I was intending on following something like: tin the sleepers, tin the chair plates then sweat them together using those rather handy ceramic tweezers I believe Caley Jim suggested to me at the end of last year. Then holding the rail in place and applying a small blob of solder to the edge of the bottom of the rail with a bit of flux.

 

 

51 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

One word of warning.  I did this on my first layout, 'Connerburn', but found after a while that I was getting switches coming adrift from the 'moving sleeper'.  I put this down to the joint being stressed by the slight flexing with each movement.  Admittedly it was a very thin joint as I was using the old plain rail and it might be less of a problem with FB.  I reinforced the joint with a tiny piece of shim bent to an 'L', but on a subsequent test track I built I attached the rail to the sleeper with a 'Z' shaped piece of wire to give some flexibility.

 

   Hopefully any faults with my approach will quickly make themselves known. This is very much something to learn and make mistakes on. I'll have to see if there's something that I can interpose to bring that papers thickness back rather than trying to rely on a solder blob. Although I'm wondering if having the blades a papers thickness below the level of the stock rails would actually be a bad thing or not.

   Thankfully (maybe?) the sleeper I've chose for actuation is the third one after the blades start so that I'm not trying to attach the thinnest part of them. But I think this was more luck than judgement!

 

Many thanks to you all,

-Jayk

[Ian Morgan]

Servos can do a full 90 degree sweep, but by attaching the wire from the tie-bar to the servo arm close to the centre, and having an omega loop to take up any excess movement, it is possible to make use of this. There are also various 3D printed mounts available, some using gears and/or eccentric wheels to provide a safe amount of movement. Various electronic modules, such as from Merg, allow you to set the limits of movement of the servo, and the speed they move. Lots more options for you to explore.

 

I would agree with Jim about not soldering point blades to a moving sleeper. I have had to wield the soldering iron at too many exhibitions to re-attach them. Now I use a rotating pivot method, in my case, wires attached to the blades dropping downwards into tubes attached to an under-baseboard tie-bar.

 

[Izzy]

I have found over time that whatever tie-bar method I use incorporating some means of allowing the blades to pivot is best. Otherwise the blades either don’t seat well up against the stock rail or take an odd bent angle and at worst keep fracturing the joint. So with a flat sleeper type add pivots using say, Peco track pins inserted through drilled holes, or on their sides with loops of soft iron wire in said holes. These days I now mainly use under-sleeper tie-bars with wires pivoting in tube, (not under-baseboard ones).

 

I don’t know if Templot incorporates gauge widening. It doesn’t really matter since you would always use gauges to build track anyway. Just relying on a template wouldn’t be a good idea I think. The standard 90degree angle three-legged gauge will produce gauge widening (single leg on the inside of the curve) relative to the tightness of the curvature. The maximum I have encountered is 9.6mm at 12”. 
 

All bogie diesels I have converted to 2FS - up to class 66 - have been quite happy on non-gauge widened curvature down to that 12” radius - using easitrac which of course can’t be gauge widened. My 0-6-0 type steam locos also cope okay, but then I always provide enough sideplay to allow it. The biggest issue on tight radius is couplings, and here DG’s are the answer I have found with their central pivot point action. Other types tend to fling stock off below a certain radius, or won’t couple up. It’s all experimentation…….

Bob

 

[Jayk]

16 hours ago, Ian Morgan said:

Servos can do a full 90 degree sweep, but by attaching the wire from the tie-bar to the servo arm close to the centre, and having an omega loop to take up any excess movement, it is possible to make use of this. There are also various 3D printed mounts available, some using gears and/or eccentric wheels to provide a safe amount of movement. Various electronic modules, such as from Merg, allow you to set the limits of movement of the servo, and the speed they move. Lots more options for you to explore.

 

I would agree with Jim about not soldering point blades to a moving sleeper. I have had to wield the soldering iron at too many exhibitions to re-attach them. Now I use a rotating pivot method, in my case, wires attached to the blades dropping downwards into tubes attached to an under-baseboard tie-bar.

 

 

   I looked at the MERG website but with how little info they actually provide about their products outside of the downloadable list I can't accurately evaluate or theorise on uses in comparison to other options. But this is way down the road yet so there is still plenty of time for me to change my mind.

   I might be being dense with the pivot thing for the turnouts. I wasn't planning on adding an additional sleeper between existing ones so there would be room for it to move in an arc and the actuating connection would be a piece of wire bent to 90 degrees that sits (not soldered) within a hole drilled in that sleeper. Or is the issue at the other end where the blades are anchored near the frog?

 

 

7 hours ago, Izzy said:

I don’t know if Templot incorporates gauge widening. It doesn’t really matter since you would always use gauges to build track anyway. Just relying on a template wouldn’t be a good idea I think. The standard 90degree angle three-legged gauge will produce gauge widening (single leg on the inside of the curve) relative to the tightness of the curvature. The maximum I have encountered is 9.6mm at 12”. 
 

All bogie diesels I have converted to 2FS - up to class 66 - have been quite happy on non-gauge widened curvature down to that 12” radius - using easitrac which of course can’t be gauge widened. My 0-6-0 type steam locos also cope okay, but then I always provide enough sideplay to allow it. The biggest issue on tight radius is couplings, and here DG’s are the answer I have found with their central pivot point action. Other types tend to fling stock off below a certain radius, or won’t couple up. It’s all experimentation…….

 

   This is some excellent news! Thank you. I grabbed one of each of the 3 gauges on offer (ignoring narrow gauge stuff). I had no idea that the triangular gauge was designed to provide this widening in use. I thought it was just for helping to align the rail being soldered rather than relying on the roller gauge to be seated perpendicular. This makes things so much easier and less worrisome.

   It's also great to hear of your experience with bogie loco's. I've used DG type couplings before and am quite a fan of them, currently I'm thinking that most of the stock would be in fixed rakes and was envisaging something like a simple loop and hook bent from some wire to hold them together. Possibly with DG types at the end and on the loco's to at least allow me some basic operations. But I thought I was being risky at 15" 😆

 

 

---

 

 

   Progress definitely slowing down and I think I'll be back to something more glacial now, but I managed to get the chair plates attached for the turnout. There's a spot that will be under the crossing assembly that is out of whack as well as a pair that I attached perpendicular to the exit rail rather than inline with the sleepers thinking that doing so made sense. Now I'm not so sure and trying to not worry too much about it - focus on getting something working and then learn to do pretty ones over the course of building the other three.

   The black marker is to remind me which sleeper to not attach the stock rails to. I also need to remember to cut a bit more of the paper away once those rails are attached so that there is room to move it to the correct place while attaching the blades. So, out come the files and it's time to file some pieces to fit!

 

Thanks again,

-Jayk

 

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, Jayk said:

I had no idea that the triangular gauge was designed to provide this widening in use.

 

I aught to just add the rider that using the triangular gauge requires care in that the single leg must always be on the inside of any curved track however slight as otherwise gauge narrowing will occur which of course must be avoided at all costs.

 

Reference to the point blades pivoting a bit is concerned with the pointy ends. Opinions on whether it is neccesary varies a bit each persons experience often being different.

 

An advantage of soldered construction using the chairplates is that re-adjusting the joints multiple times is possible and does no real harm to the pcb sleepers as the chairplates act as heatsinks, so there is little chance of the copper lifting from the paxolin, which has historically been a problem encountered with pcb sleepers when subjected to excess heat. So altering chairplate position after initial construction is always possible if things don't go perfectly first time.

 

Bob

Edited May 5, 2022 by Izzy

[Caley Jim]

@Izzy is correct regarding the weak joint being between the moving sleeper and the toe of the switch.  There shouldn't be a problem at the heel end as that can be soldered to several sleepers.  Unless, of course, like me you use loose heel switches for prototype accuracy for the late c19th!

 

Jim

[Ian Morgan]

5 hours ago, Jayk said:

 

   I looked at the MERG website but with how little info they actually provide about their products outside of the downloadable list I can't accurately evaluate or theorise on uses in comparison to other options. But this is way down the road yet so there is still plenty of time for me to change my mind.

 

 

Yes, there is a bewildering array of options, and if you ask half a dozen Merg members, you will be given a dozen different solutions.

 

But, if you want to discuss what you want to acheive, I can try to provide advice.

 

[Jayk]

In response to @Caley Jim and @Izzy

 

   I think I'm starting to understand where the forces come from that would cause the issue. Maybe. I have a feeling that I'll get it once I build it, so it's going to be one of those areas where I have to pay close attention to what's going on. Modifying my intended approach shouldn't be too difficult if it does all go south rather quickly.

 

 

15 hours ago, Ian Morgan said:

 

Yes, there is a bewildering array of options, and if you ask half a dozen Merg members, you will be given a dozen different solutions.

 

But, if you want to discuss what you want to acheive, I can try to provide advice.

 

 

   At the moment it is all theoretical and it's partly learning what is available and what possibilities spring to mind when looking at things. At the moment I'm leaning towards using one of the small single board computers that are available, mostly likely a Pi zero 2. Something like the Adafruit 16-Channel 12-bit PWM/Servo Driver - I2C interface would allow for an insane number of turnouts to be operated, although polarity changing for frogs I'm still working on outside of using a microswitch tripped by the arm of the servo. Control of the servos can then be managed via physical controls connected via other GPIO pins and with the logic being run in software route setting or some sort of interlocking or presets etc are easy to add in. Alternatively a touchscreen could be added for control or I could run a web server on it and use a browser to operate the controls either via a dedicated connected screen or a browser on another device on the same network. Further I could then port forward and add a DDNS service which would allow for the control page to accessed from anywhere. On top of this, and partly the reason I'm leaning towards a Pi, is that should I wish to also add DCC then I could build a DCC++ system and plug that in to a USB port on the Pi to control it via JMRI or a web throttle of even using a physical interface running again from the GPIO pins. Such massive options.

 

   From the MERG product list I can see that there is a CBUS thing which seems to have a Pi interface of some sort although the software pack that is listed seems to reference a product that is no longer available. There's also the CBUS beginners packs which I assume contain stuff. Then there's the other bus systems that seem to be available. PTP-Lite and EzyBus. Product list is also at this point 3 years old (dated June 2019).

   I've only just found links to what seems to be a basic overview for the systems and possibly some (maybe all?) of the kits. I'll need to spend a bit of time reading through but it appears to be much more about interfacing specific, static hardware modules rather than something that would have the flexibility of a software controlled system.

 

   I might be horribly underselling the MERG approach, if there's a similar-ish sort of expandability and options with ease of switching between or adding options I'd love to know. While I don't have any plans to make use of all the possibilities I can see with the Pi approach it's one of those things that's nice to have built in. Mostly it's about having an easy way to build out from a simple start.

 

-Jayk

[Caley Jim]

Lost me there!  All sounds horrendously complex to a bear whose little brain never got the hang of electronics! ☹️ Much happier with wire-in-tube from a proper interlocked lever frame! 😀

 

Jim

[Ian Morgan]

For your simple shelf layout, the Raspberry Pi is a bit of overkill. A simple Arduino can easily let you start playing with servos. I have just built a modern level crossing with four servos to operate the barriers, red and yellow LEDs for the wig-wag lights and a piezo sounder to do the warbling. A push button starts the process. Libraries are used to handle the servos and sounds, so programming was just concerned with setting up the finite state machine for the process. It all fitted on an Arduino Nano that can be found for about £3. No extra electronics required.

 

I can explain at length about Layout Control Buses (LCB) and CBUS in particular, but that may be too much for this thread.

 

[Jayk]

   Absolutely, for this a Pi would definitely be overkill. This project is about learning track building and providing a test environment for stock. I'm pretty committed to just using simple slide switches for the turnout actuators and frog polarity switching. The fun stuff starts with the actual layout that would follow, the mental process is about finding the extent of what is possible and then scaling back to what is practical for what is needed but including some headroom for just in case.

 

   I'll have to investigate the MERG stuff further as wiring is about as much fun as coding. A sentiment that can be approached from both ends, but I mean it in a good way. 😀 But I agree that the discussion is best suited elsewhere.

 

-Jayk.

[Yorkshire Square]

2 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Lost me there!  All sounds horrendously complex to a bear whose little brain never got the hang of electronics! ☹️ Much happier with wire-in-tube from a proper interlocked lever frame! 😀

 

Jim

 

It's fairly straightforward Jim. If you're heading into town, get the EzyBus. For the countryside try the CBus. Whichever option you go for be careful not to sit in the Raspberry Pi someone left on the seat. 😉

[Jayk]

 

   Got the frog and check rails done. Not sure whether this is the harder part or if the blades will be the tricky part of the build, but this was definitely a part I was nervous about. I'm pretty sure that the check rails aren't fully vertical as I wasn't able to find a good way of getting a gauge on them, settling for holding the roller gauge with the majority of it outside of the track. But they're spaced correctly from the stock rails so I guess a case of no harm, no foul. Also looking at it now it seems that I didn't manage to get the curved stock rail on smoothly, there definitely seems to be a couple of kinks. Hopefully this won't be an issue so long as I am careful to frequently gauge the curved closure rail / blade as I attach it. Not much space to really test it at this point but I was able to propel my starter wagon back and forth through the frog on both sides using the tip of a pair of tweezers and it seems ok. For freestyling it from just the template I'm definitely happy with this.

 

   I've ordered the stuff I need for operating it and hopefully there's no major mistakes in my selection. Wire in tube, so no worrying about which bus to catch or what time it runs 🙃 I'm a little worried about the slide switches as they only have 2mm of movement on them, but that should be enough and won't require too much (or possibly any) in the way of springing. I'll still pop an omega loop in though. Also hoping that 26swg wire in 0.5mm ID tube won't be too stiff to operate, but that's a problem I can ignore until the parts arrive!

 

   I also seem to be lucky in that the etch for the class 25 is approximately the same thickness as the paper that the templates were printed on, so I'll be able to use little bits of that to raise the chairplates on the moving sleeper for a better contact with the blades. On that note, yes I did remember to file the foot off of the stock rails where the blades will contact them prior to soldering them on, it's sort of visible on the straight stock rail covering a length of 5 sleepers. I didn't joggle the rails so the blades will have to be filed down to a very fine tip. But not today.

 

  Apologies for these small updates, I'm hoping that if I do anything particularly dumb it can be caught early enough to not turn in to a mountainous obstacle. Many thanks to all that take the time to read.

 

-Jayk

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Jayk said:

I'm pretty sure that the check rails aren't fully vertical as I wasn't able to find a good way of getting a gauge on them, settling for holding the roller gauge with the majority of it outside of the track.

I use a piece of rail to gauge the check and wing rails as both the bullhead and the old plain rail are 0.5mm wide.   A good coating with an indelible marker pen stops it getting accidentally solder in.

 

1 hour ago, Jayk said:

 I'm a little worried about the slide switches as they only have 2mm of movement on them, but that should be enough and won't require too much (or possibly any) in the way of springing. I'll still pop an omega loop in though. Also hoping that 26swg wire in 0.5mm ID tube won't be too stiff to operate, but that's a problem I can ignore until the parts arrive!

2mm should be more than adequate and that wire should be OK.  You may have to experiment a bit with the size of omega loop to use, probably not very big.

 

Jim

[Jayk]

 

   It is done! Filing the blades wasn't as bad as I feared it might be. I filed a little off of the inside (running face) of the rail to make it smooth, then bent it slightly inwards so that it remained flat along that edge. I picked that up as a tip and did the same when forming the frog, but forgot to mention it, as a way to ensure that there was vertical support all the way to the ends.

   Once the blades where shaped, adding tiny little offcuts from the class 25 etch to the underside of them where the actuating sleeper would be was probably the worst part. Thankfully I got them soldered on and only worried about filing the mating faces down. I did this so that the actuating sleeper can remain that paper thickness below the stock rails. Soldering the blades in place was fairly simple just using the normal gauges, although I did attach the first couple of sleepers working from the frog back to the curved blade using gauge narrowing because I really needed the small contact from the single foot of the triangular gauge. But once I'd done the rest I went back with the roller gauge and reflowed those joins to allow them to sit in the correct position.

   Attaching the blades to the actuating sleeper was done with the roller gauge holding them at check rail distance away. I went for a slightly longer contact than a quick dab because with what's been said about the joints failing I wanted to make sure that it was attached for the full width under the rail. Hopefully this will give them some resilience. It also means that with at rest (as in the image) both blades are attempting to push inwards and it hold itself at approximately the midpoint.

 

   Shame I didn't quite get the actuating sleeper attached square on! But as it's working I really don't want to go back and fiddle with it. Now to wait for supplies and work up to doing the others. This should also be the last mini-update message, so things will quieten down.

 

-Jayk

[Ian Morgan]

One final tip (or two).

1. Check with a multimeter that you have isolated the stock rails from the frog and each other. You can get invisibly small slivers of copper bridging the gap along the sleeper sides.
2. Fill the gaps with Milliput. Once painted and on the layout they look so much better.
3. The ends of the frog rails should either be bent to match the ends of the check rails, or filed at an angle to represent more modern track. (then the check rails should match too)

Looking pretty good for a first attempt. My first attempts, and some later attempts, looked far scruffier than that.

 

[Jayk]

   Thank you, I completely forgot to bend the ends of the wing rails out before I placed them. Now I'm not sure that I have anything small yet sturdy enough to get in there to tweak them outwards so I'll have to try and forget it's a thing I forgot on this one. I did remember, though, to check it with a multimeter after checking the starter wagon would still roll through it. I'd previously checked that the scoring had actually isolated the sections before doing any soldering and had checked the first sleeper where it went back to a single score after the frog once I'd placed the chairplates because it was rather close to where the mark was. Thankfully all has been fine in that regard.

 

   I do like the suggestion about filling in the gaps with milliput to improve the appearance. That's not something I'd even thought about, I guess too much time with the hobby where those are just a part of normality. That's going to be a fiddly job!

 

-Jayk

[Jayk]

 

   Much less to show for the work this week. Although I'm super happy to get this part done, it seriously felt like one of those 1 step forwards and 2 steps back processes. I really think that there must be an easier way to do this, I'd intended originally for it to have ends as well as the middle spacer underneath but I got a little carried away with how close I could cut back and the gears ended up protruding.

   After much struggling I managed to get a joint I was happy with on the lower spacer and even managed to get the gears in and meshed, then after more struggling I managed to get the side pieces on for the worm. Then it all went a bit wrong. The joints weren't as good as I'd hoped and things were starting to flex and then one of the side pieces fell off. I got that back in place, eventually, only to discover that I'd mounted it too high and the worm was no longer meshing. On top of that the side frames were not parallel nor were they at 8mm across the outside faces at any point. So back out came the soldering iron and I got to have more fun getting things true, well joined and in the correct place.

 

   After that it was back to fiddling with the gears again because the meshing was no longer correct. Then I took too much material off of an intermediate muff which was allowing the gear to float across and catch on the skew cut in the center. That took longer to notice than I'd like to admit as it was absolutely fine so long as the bogie was tilted with the gears down. In the end I taped the minidrill to the desk and stuck the whole gear, muff, axle steel thing in it and with a needle file pretended I had a small lathe. I also had to do this to reduced the diameter very slightly for a couple of other gears and then file out the cuts to re-point the teeth.

    But eventually I got it all sorted so that now I can spin the axle steel the worm runs on and despite the fact the worm is a loose fit on it, everything turns! The two sideframes are also electrically isolated from each other. I think I'll add a little araldite around the the outsides of the joints to just provide a bit more security than relying purely on the inside soldered joints and then it's time to block up all 12 holes from both sides with blutac and give the thing some paint.

 

-Jayk

[Klaus ojo]

Jayk,

I can imagine that you are really glad that it works now. My own approach of a bogie looks much worse and thus I´ve thrown it into the corner- where it keeps waiting for me because I need several of that kind for my class22 and some czech models.

You seem to suffer the same problem at soldering like me: not enough courage for more heat and so you only get a tack solder joint which comes loose at the next occasion. I am not an expert, still a newbie and may be wrong as your pointwork looks good in my eyes. 

The bogie cost you a dozen P bronze bushes and you have used rather thick metal for the frame. Did you think about using 0.6 .. 0.8mm phosphor bronze sheet for the entire thing? It´s the same work but smaller holes to drill and ream.

Please show your further progress. You indeed have encouraged me to make a new start with my bogies. Thanks for that!

cheers

Klaus