Is track building making a come back

[dj_crisp]

I think this all looks really good.

 

What do you guys use for TOUs, tiebars etc? That's the bit I'm struggling with to get a robust and reliable setup my hand-built track.

[martin_wynne]

3 hours ago, dj_crisp said:

I think this all looks really good.

 

What do you guys use for TOUs, tiebars etc? That's the bit I'm struggling with to get a robust and reliable setup my hand-built track.

 

Are you asking about Templot plug track?

 

The deeper timbers make it possible to have a dummy slider working below the ballast level. This is the currently intended design:

 

 

The pin is retained in the slider with a soldered collar (not strictly necessary, but it makes assembly easier) which might be a small washer or a wrap of copper wire. The top of the pin is bent over and soldered to the foot of the switch blade in the usual way. If suitable pins are hard to find, the pin could be replaced with 1mm brass wire, bent over at 90 degrees below the slider.

The ribs are angled at 45 degrees to enable the rib to be FDM printed more accurately. The short slot in the slider (rather than a plain hole) allows for the curving action of the open switch blade.

(On a curved turnout the two timbers are not exactly parallel, although this is barely noticeable at any normal model radius.)

The whole gubbins is hidden below a thin card or thick paper cover which can have some ballast sprinkled on it and/or be covered in the usual track gunge, having a couple of openings for the pins. If made from paper, the openings can be simple knife slits, which would close round the pin very effectively.

Dummy model stretcher bars can then be added, which can be resin-printed and fully detailed. This drive design also maintains full daylight below the rails between the timbers, not relying on the underside of the rail to hold the switch blades down on the slide chairs -- the slider does that. On the prototype the stretcher bars do that, and can be modelled with dummy extensions. (And full dummy rodding added, if wanted.)

The actual sequence of assembly is still to be determined. If built on the bench it can be fitted from below quite easily. If built in-situ, it might be necessary to insert the slider and pins before adding the rails.

 

So far the timbering bases include the ribs for the slider, but the 3D file for the slider itself is not yet done:

 

 

Notice also the seldom-modelled steel soleplate on the toe timber.

 

(The smaller ribs alongside the other timbers are retaining ridges for self-contained dropper wires.)

 

More info on the Templot web site as it becomes available.

 

Martin.

Edited November 26, 2023 by martin_wynne

[NFWEM57]

On 24/11/2023 at 16:02, hayfield said:

n conclusion, certainly there are components available for building flatbottom track, and the choice is getting bigger

Thank you for the very comprehensive reply.   Alas, the issue remains the same.  I have read the MMRS papers which, although very interesting,  concern plain track only.  I might acquire a packet of the PECO sleepers and clips but they look a little crude looking at the image.  The 3D printed versions using TEMPLPOT look to have a very thick base, and in any case are BH only.  British Finscale have 3D printed easy build track bases for FB rail but, alas, only in N gauge.  What I require is the same easy construction method for FB that is available for BH.  It looks like it will be a bit of a battle but nothing is impossible.  Bit more research on the prototype required and then see what can be obtained or manufactured.  The 5th edition BR Track DC&M does have a lot of information and my need for a switched diamond crossing has been simplified as the FB equivalent is now the much simpler swing nose crossing.

 

I shall persevere..!

 

Patrick

Edited November 26, 2023 by NFWEM57
Typo

[hayfield]

49 minutes ago, NFWEM57 said:

Thank you for the very comprehensive reply.   Alas, the issue remains the same.  I have read the MMRS papers which, although very interesting,  concern plain track only.  I might acquire a packet of the PECO sleepers and clips but they look a little crude looking at the image.  The 3D printed versions using TEMPLPOT look to have a very thick base, and in any case are BH only.  British Finscale have 3D printed easy build track bases for FB rail but, alas, only in N gauge.  What I require is the same easy construction method for FB that is available for BH.  It looks like it will be a bit of a battle but nothing is impossible.  Bit more research on the prototype required and then see what can be obtained or manufactured.  The 5th edition BR Track DC&M does have a lot of information and my need for a switched diamond crossing has been simplified as the FB equivalent is now the much simpler swing nose crossing.

 

I shall persevere..!

 

Patrick

 

Patrick

 

The trouble is we all want everything at once going from famine to feast. 5 years ago the only thing available to most was H0 scale flatbottom track which the majority happily accepted, less so now and in RTR and kit form 4mm scale bullhead and to a lesser extent flatbottom is available in RTR. Even EM & P4 gauges are catered for in RTR and easy build kits

 

Those of us who built our own track have had access to basic chairs in 5/6 formats (2, 3 (x2) and 4 bolt bullhead chairs and Pandrol and ST fixings for flatbottom, but never anything comprehensive

 

Plug track is breaking the mold, thanks to Martin via Templot we could design in 2 D free flowing trackwork, now as far as bullhead is concerned easy to build 3D trackwork has arrived, limited to turnouts at the moment and bullhead with 3 bolt chairs. But from normal viewing distances who can tell how many bolts chairs have, most viewers would not even know how many bolts there should be !!!

 

You can have free flowing track, but unless you wish to go back to bullhead ( which in many cases might still be prototypical) to achieve it in flatbottom you may have to do a bit more work

 

Good luck with your journey

[Timber]

Here is the Templot Plug Track turnout I have built...in S Scale....I am a relative novice to both Templot/Plug Track and Track Building.....it has taken me a while but it works for me.....I have a little more work to do on my FDM Printing but everything is true and fits together perfectly.....this is a bit of a rough video but it shows one of my engines traversing the turnout very smoothly - better than anything I have achieved before Templot Plug Track.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Timber

[hayfield]

9 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Are you asking about Templot plug track?

 

The deeper timbers make it possible to have a dummy slider working below the ballast level. This is the currently intended design:

 

 

The pin is retained in the slider with a soldered collar (not strictly necessary, but it makes assembly easier) which might be a small washer or a wrap of copper wire. The top of the pin is bent over and soldered to the foot of the switch blade in the usual way. If suitable pins are hard to find, the pin could be replaced with 1mm brass wire, bent over at 90 degrees below the slider.

The ribs are angled at 45 degrees to enable the rib to be FDM printed more accurately. The short slot in the slider (rather than a plain hole) allows for the curving action of the open switch blade.

(On a curved turnout the two timbers are not exactly parallel, although this is barely noticeable at any normal model radius.)

The whole gubbins is hidden below a thin card or thick paper cover which can have some ballast sprinkled on it and/or be covered in the usual track gunge, having a couple of openings for the pins. If made from paper, the openings can be simple knife slits, which would close round the pin very effectively.

Dummy model stretcher bars can then be added, which can be resin-printed and fully detailed. This drive design also maintains full daylight below the rails between the timbers, not relying on the underside of the rail to hold the switch blades down on the slide chairs -- the slider does that. On the prototype the stretcher bars do that, and can be modelled with dummy extensions. (And full dummy rodding added, if wanted.)

The actual sequence of assembly is still to be determined. If built on the bench it can be fitted from below quite easily. If built in-situ, it might be necessary to insert the slider and pins before adding the rails.

 

So far the timbering bases include the ribs for the slider, but the 3D file for the slider itself is not yet done:

 

 

Notice also the seldom-modelled steel soleplate on the toe timber.

 

(The smaller ribs alongside the other timbers are retaining ridges for self-contained dropper wires.)

 

More info on the Templot web site as it becomes available.

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin

 

I have been missing this in class and is a superb bit of thinking, I remember you discussing this but never realized it had bee implemented. Thank you for this design and implementation 

[NFWEM57]

12 hours ago, hayfield said:

The trouble is we all want everything at once going from famine to feast.

Hi , thanks for the comments and I must stress, I take nothing away from those giants who have worked hard to improve track building up to the present.  However, I was surprised at the lack of availability of FB components. 

Wayne Kinney (British Finescale)  )has sold N gauge FB turnouts with concrete bases for years.  Wayne did all the research and produced a viable product.   Not sure stick with BH because that is all that is available in 4mm is quite the  right answer, its sounds awfully like giving up.  In addition, not quite sure my requirement is famine to feast, it will be a journey and you have to start somewhere.  Research will be first and that has already started.

 

FB has been around for 60 plus years, BH much longer at 100 plus years , but are we really saying we will have to wait another 40 year before we get FB solutions to 4mm scale track building?  What about the youngsters interested in modern finescale track building now?

 

This is not a criticism on what has gone before, it is a suggestion that we need to up our game to provide for future modeller's.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, NFWEM57 said:

Hi , thanks for the comments and I must stress, I take nothing away from those giants who have worked hard to improve track building up to the present.  However, I was surprised at the lack of availability of FB components. 

Wayne Kinney (British Finescale)  )has sold N gauge FB turnouts with concrete bases for years.  Wayne did all the research and produced a viable product.   Not sure stick with BH because that is all that is available in 4mm is quite the  right answer, its sounds awfully like giving up.  In addition, not quite sure my requirement is famine to feast, it will be a journey and you have to start somewhere.  Research will be first and that has already started.

 

FB has been around for 60 plus years, BH much longer at 100 plus years , but are we really saying we will have to wait another 40 year before we get FB solutions to 4mm scale track building?  What about the youngsters interested in modern finescale track building now?

 

This is not a criticism on what has gone before, it is a suggestion that we need to up our game to provide for future modeller's.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

Patrick

 

I assume the problem is that the market is very small ( I can count on one hand the number of times I have been asked for ST baseplates at shows I have helped Phil out at) and if that is the case for a manufacturer its a simple waste of time as there is no likelihood of recouping their outlay 

 

The plug track would be an idea but there is at least two issues

 

Firstly with at least 18 differing types which do you choose ?

The second issue is how many of the 18 would work in your chosen scale ?

Thirdly I believe both the slide chairs and check rail chairs have very distinctive styling

 

I have a very similar issue with 4 mm narrow gauge 12mm gauge, the issue is getting a style I am happy with, probably easier as usually they are spiked into position

 

 

This is a test print with 10" timbers, spaced as per standard gauge spacing I will firstly glue the rails in place, then spike them.

 

Will it work ?  I have no idea. I think I will have to add small plates between the rail and timbers, tin foil might work but in the end it will be a case of working with what is available. already I think I can loose the first timber and perhaps the last one so the bases fit better on the build plate. This shows the versatility of both the 2D design in Templot and also Templot 3D plug track

[NFWEM57]

18 hours ago, hayfield said:

I assume the problem is that the market is very small ( I can count on one hand the number of times I have been asked for ST baseplates at shows I have helped Phil out at) and if that is the case for a manufacturer its a simple waste of time as there is no likelihood of recouping their outlay 

I have ordered the base plate components that are are available from C&L and PECO (not all are shown when searching their website) along with some FB rail.  I'll try my hand at a FB B6 and use it on a revamp of my test track. Good thread on Scale Four on making switch blades, crossings, check and wing rails.  https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7455  

 

Thank you for all the advice.  I will upload my attempt in a few weeks time, have a few Hornby upgrades for the eBay Christmas period to get out of the way first.

[hayfield]

15 hours ago, NFWEM57 said:

I have ordered the base plate components that are are available from C&L and PECO (not all are shown when searching their website) along with some FB rail.  I'll try my hand at a FB B6 and use it on a revamp of my test track. Good thread on Scale Four on making switch blades, crossings, check and wing rails.  https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7455  

 

Thank you for all the advice.  I will upload my attempt in a few weeks time, have a few Hornby upgrades for the eBay Christmas period to get out of the way first.

 

 

If you have ordered code 83* the rail might be a tight squeeze, C&L code 82 may be  better fit

 

* Peco used to sell code 82 and I think their chairs are designed for it

[NFWEM57]

19 hours ago, hayfield said:

If you have ordered code 83* the rail might be a tight squeeze, C&L code 82 may be  better fit

 

Have ordered Exactoscale concrete track base and Code 83 rail from the EMGS, Code 82 rail from PECO.   The code 82 will fit the C&L and PECO baseplates, the code 83 is for the plain concrete track.

 

Until I get the samples, the difference in size between the various Code 82 and Code 83 products currently available is unknown.  If the available FB rail is seriously undersize, as is indicated on various internet articles and links, then the whole idea may be a non starter.  Little point modelling FB if the rail head of the only available rail is 15% or more undersize with all the implications that has on using standard gauges and the few available components; it is the HO/OO issue all over again.  I moved to EM to minimise the undersize gauge issue so to have to use seriously undersize rail for FB sort of defeats the object..!  And of course Code 82 no longer available from PECO, I think I managed to find a store which had some remaining stock; unless it is marked Code 82 but is actually Code 83 in the bag as some have previously discovered.  Not sure on C&L Code 82 dimensions and no real way of finding out unless a sample is purchased.  I'll post my findings.

Edited November 29, 2023 by NFWEM57
Additional info

[dj_crisp]

On 26/11/2023 at 02:25, martin_wynne said:

 

Are you asking about Templot plug track?

 

The deeper timbers make it possible to have a dummy slider working below the ballast level. This is the currently intended design:

 

 

The pin is retained in the slider with a soldered collar (not strictly necessary, but it makes assembly easier) which might be a small washer or a wrap of copper wire. The top of the pin is bent over and soldered to the foot of the switch blade in the usual way. If suitable pins are hard to find, the pin could be replaced with 1mm brass wire, bent over at 90 degrees below the slider.

The ribs are angled at 45 degrees to enable the rib to be FDM printed more accurately. The short slot in the slider (rather than a plain hole) allows for the curving action of the open switch blade.

(On a curved turnout the two timbers are not exactly parallel, although this is barely noticeable at any normal model radius.)

The whole gubbins is hidden below a thin card or thick paper cover which can have some ballast sprinkled on it and/or be covered in the usual track gunge, having a couple of openings for the pins. If made from paper, the openings can be simple knife slits, which would close round the pin very effectively.

Dummy model stretcher bars can then be added, which can be resin-printed and fully detailed. This drive design also maintains full daylight below the rails between the timbers, not relying on the underside of the rail to hold the switch blades down on the slide chairs -- the slider does that. On the prototype the stretcher bars do that, and can be modelled with dummy extensions. (And full dummy rodding added, if wanted.)

The actual sequence of assembly is still to be determined. If built on the bench it can be fitted from below quite easily. If built in-situ, it might be necessary to insert the slider and pins before adding the rails.

 

So far the timbering bases include the ribs for the slider, but the 3D file for the slider itself is not yet done:

 

 

Notice also the seldom-modelled steel soleplate on the toe timber.

 

(The smaller ribs alongside the other timbers are retaining ridges for self-contained dropper wires.)

 

More info on the Templot web site as it becomes available.

 

Martin.

 

This looks like an interesting approach. I was kind of asking how you'd do it with an eye on ideas for mine which hasn't been successful enough.

 

Thanks!

Will

[hayfield]

18 hours ago, NFWEM57 said:

Have ordered Exactoscale concrete track base and Code 83 rail from the EMGS, Code 82 rail from PECO.   The code 82 will fit the C&L and PECO baseplates, the code 83 is for the plain concrete track.

 

Until I get the samples, the difference in size between the various Code 82 and Code 83 products currently available is unknown.  If the available FB rail is seriously undersize, as is indicated on various internet articles and links, then the whole idea may be a non starter.  Little point modelling FB if the rail head of the only available rail is 15% or more undersize with all the implications that has on using standard gauges and the few available components; it is the HO/OO issue all over again.  I moved to EM to minimise the undersize gauge issue so to have to use seriously undersize rail for FB sort of defeats the object..!  And of course Code 82 no longer available from PECO, I think I managed to find a store which had some remaining stock; unless it is marked Code 82 but is actually Code 83 in the bag as some have previously discovered.  Not sure on C&L Code 82 dimensions and no real way of finding out unless a sample is purchased.  I'll post my findings.

 

At one Scalefour event C&L was approached by several members requesting code 82 fb rail as the society had changed to code 83 and it (code 83) is a very tight fit to the P4 fast track bases.

 

I have used code 83 with Peco's Pandrol clips, as you would expect the fit is tighter

 

Good luck

[NFWEM57]

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

Good luck

PECO Code 83 has arrived and is, as previously indicated, far too small width wise but a 1/1000 (0.02mm) thicker at the base.  Hopefully the PECO Code 82 I have discovered and purchased is what it says on the packet and my immediate and future needs will be resolved.  If not, I will be after a piece of C&L Code 82 to assess/measure. 

 

I can only assume the Code 83 is useful for 3rd rail applications which is why the societies stock it.  Otherwise code 83 would appear to be of no use at all for finescale UK track building..!

[KeithHC]

I always thought code 60 was used for third rail.

 

Keith

[NFWEM57]

1 hour ago, KeithHC said:

I always thought code 60 was used for third rail.

 

You learn something every day..! The mystery on why societies sell code 83 continues..! 

[martin_wynne]

31 minutes ago, NFWEM57 said:

The mystery on why societies sell code 83 continues..! 

 

UK flat-bottom rail (6.1/4") in 4mm/ft scale is Code 82.

 

Code 83 rail is USA heavy flat-bottom rail in H0 scale (3.5mm/ft).

 

Peco use it in their "83-Line" products for the USA market:

 

 

The societies stock it for modellers working in Proto:87.

 

Martin.

[KeithHC]

It’s a pity that fasttrac does not do 4mm building fixtures. They would potentionally solve the issues for FB construction. 
 

Keith

[NFWEM57]

19 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

It’s a pity that fasttrac does not do 4mm building fixtures.

I think I have already worked out I will need to manufacture some gauges for FB rail  whether 82 or 83 variant.  DCC Concepts do not make gauges for EM/P4 FB anymore.  So, some lathe work and some milling work to undertake for a set of code 82 roller and 3 point gauges.  Norman Solomon had a set of adjustable roller gauges on the recent Missenden Abbey track building course I attended.  That might be the best approach.  

[NFWEM57]

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

UK flat-bottom rail (6.1/4") in 4mm/ft scale is Code 82.

I hope I can get some at a reasonable price and which is to scale..!..!

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, NFWEM57 said:

I hope I can get some at a reasonable price and which is to scale..!..!

 

Code 82 FB rail is available here: http://www.karlgarin.com/whatsnew.htm

 

It's intended for light rail in 7mm scale, but may be ok in 4mm.

 

Martin.

 

 

[NFWEM57]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

It's intended for light rail in 7mm scale, but may be ok in 4mm.

Martin, thank you for the link.  Have checked the specification and although the correct height, the head and base are too wide, 22% and 11% respectively.  I'll see what the postman brings over the next few days as I have two rail orders in, EMGS Code 83 and PECO IL-115 Code 82. 

 

Thank you once again.

[Captain Kernow]

On 25/11/2023 at 19:56, hayfield said:

There is a learning curve, but if a computer illiterate 70 year old can manage it anyone can.

No, not true at all, sorry to contradict you.

 

Some of us (well, certainly applies to me) have brains wired in such a way that virtually any kind of computer software represents an impenetrable jungle. I just can't 'get' it, no matter how hard I've tried in the past. The only reason I can even manage to stay on line is because my wife understands computers far, far better that I ever could.

 

I applaud and admire all of you pioneering this new technology, but at my age I am simply not prepared to risk the amount of remaining modelling time that I would have to put into the attempt to master it. I'd far rather be cutting bits of plasticard or soldering bits of metal and this reflects the modelling techniques I grew up with and defines the boundaries of my comfort zone.

 

I recently had to have some components laser cut for a layout project I am helping with. The only way I could do this, was to supply the company doing the production with a pencil drawing, on which I had hand-written the dimensions...

 

The title of this thread is about whether track building is making a come-back. Well, for me, it never went away, so can't really 'come back'.

 

I enjoy building points in my own, stone-age kind of way (soldering rail to copper clad sleepers). I've used the Portsdown jigs for blades and common crossing Vs and they are very useful. More recently, I'm currently building four B8 conventional turnouts in P4 for my S4 area group's new test track. Someone was able to supply some C&L pre-planed blades and pre-assembled common crossings, which have helped considerably in accelerating construction time.

 

[NFWEM57]

21 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

C&L pre-planed blades

Flat Bottom C&L planed blades?

[Captain Kernow]

1 minute ago, NFWEM57 said:

Flat Bottom C&L planed blades?

No, they are bullhead.