Bentley St. Mary - a Southern vignette in N gauge

[AndyB]

Well after my pessimistic post last week I let my inner bl@@dy mindedness loose on turnout construction.

 

And whilst Arsenal were shredding West Ham this afternoon I sat at the dinning room table and got stuck into a B6 crossover. 

 

The fiddly bit for me is the knuckle. So after getting those tiny pieces of rail in place the rest sort of fell in to place. 

 

 

This week I'll get the tie bars soldered in place and the rails wired up. 

 

But for now I feel a tot of Old Pulteney is called for. 

Cheers for now. Andy

 

Noting one of the common crossing rails had gone AWOL in the original photo! Careless of me!

 

Edited February 11 by AndyB

[AndyB]

A small, but somewhat satisfying update.

A few small jobs done which gave moved the dial a bit on progress.

 

Firstly, cork laid to the station and the throat. 

 

Next some supports under the station throat sub-baseboard which will eventually hold it rigid, at the right height and level. Carefully avoiding where servo motors will be mounted..

 

A quick tidy up and then the central board was lifted to let me access the Megapoints PCBs ahead of eiring up various motors and switches. 

 

 

This B6 turnout will lead to the bay departure platform. After a bit of fiddling the servo wire was threaded through and its its swing tuned up. 

 

 

Touching the "switch" wire to the +5V supply resulted in the point blades moving as desired. Happy days! So I've called it a day whilst things are going my way. 😊

 

But just as a "look-see" I've temporarily put the crossover where it'll end up.

 

 

But finally another little job was to hang 2 of my railway jigsaws on the wall. 

 

 

And finally, to remind myself this layout will work out OK, a reminder of it's predecessor...

 

 

Anyway, that's all for now.

If anyone would like to comment please feel free to do so; your thoughts are most welcome.

Cheers. Andy

 

 

[AndyB]

So. Long story short.

I was finishing off wiring the crossing when a tiny part of the rail popped out. Unfortunately it won't simply push back in as the "chair" had the remains of the glue in it that was meant to secure the rail in place.

 

 

This thing is also tiny! 

So thinking cap on.. 

 

I ground out the chair with a Dremel and am going to try to refit the rail with epoxy. Making sure it's at the right height and angle. 

 

But a practice piece first...albeit much, much larger.

 

Now. I don't know if this is going to work. 

But the price of these points is quite steep and I can't really afford to throw another one away. 

 

If it works then great. If not then I already have a decent seke tion of Peco Code 55 points to fall back on. 

 

Fingers crossed!

[Artless Bodger]

Good luck with that repair, it looks like watchmaker's work.

[Fishplate]

Just a thought: The piece you put back will need to be electrically re-connected to the crossing wing rail. Or will it be able to be the equivalent of a 'dead frog' without affecting running due to the short length? Good luck with your repair.

[AndyB]

5 hours ago, Fishplate said:

Just a thought: The piece you put back will need to be electrically re-connected to the crossing wing rail. Or will it be able to be the equivalent of a 'dead frog' without affecting running due to the short length? Good luck with your repair.

 

Hi @Fishplate yes. It'll need reconnecting electrically. I did start off by soldering a wire to these components. But the gap to the wing rail (I think its called) is so small it proved as easy to add just a small amount of solder between the two components.

 

It was when I was removing a surplus wire that the rail in question dropped out. Rgaylk reach me!

Andy

 

[AndyB]

It took a few attempts.

And the tweezers I used to hold the tiny piece of rail in position were as keen to stick to the rail as the rail was to the sleeper webbing! I've run a truck through and it seems OK.

 

 

Just waiting 24 hours for the epoxy to fully cure before sorting the electrical connection. Meantime I can set about threading up the plain lengths of track that'll go to make the running lines and sidings. 

 

But this little repair job did make me think back to working with an ENT surgeon who did myringoplasty. Now, stitching up a tear in an infant's eardrum definitely WAS fiddly.

Could have used his skills for making up these points! Lol. 

 

Cheers for now. Andy

 

[Fishplate]

On 23/02/2024 at 13:29, AndyB said:

But the gap to the wing rail (I think its called)

 

There are several components in a crossing. Really needs a diagram, but the wing rails are there to provide support to the wheel tread as the wheel flange passes through the gap (known as the neck) in the crossing.

 

So on the straight route, the check rail opposite the gap is there to ensure the flange passing through the gap doesn't go the wrong way down the curved route. And vice versa.

 

Hope that helps. . . .

[AndyB]

Thanks John (@Fishplate). That's very helpful and puts what I'm trying to repair into context.

 

I've now run a wagon through the crossover and found a couple of rough running sections. Managed to sort these out with various Dremel tools. 

 

Cheers. Andy

[AndyB]

So the good news was that I installed the crossover and got servos attached to the tie bars.

Not so good news was that one of the servos had a "bit of a wobble" this morning and broke the tie bar. 

 

 

To repair it id need to fashion a new tie bar,

unsolder the stock rails and then doa rebuild. 

With the amount of fettling already done to this pair of points I don't think it would survive well enough to deliver reliable running and operation.

 

And I might stumble on assemby or installation issues with any of the points planned for the layout. I could be here in 6 months not much further forward, approaching autumn / winter, when I tend to wind down work on the layout, with the same skeleton of baseboard frames that I had 12 months earlier. Would I have the heart to carry on?

 

Whereas I could revert to Peco Code 55 and get to the scenic stage (the bit I enjoy) this spring and have a layout up and running by autumn.

 

Sure the Peco track and points don't look as good. But if I get reliable train operation...?

 

Any thoughts??

 

Edited February 26 by AndyB

[AndrueC]

I think you should pat yourself on the back for making the effort and learning a new skill but start laying code 55 so you can see progress. My layout is code 80 and with painted rails it doesn't look too bad so I think 55 should look good. Ultimately you're doing this for fun and expending time an effort on a single turnout doesn't sound like fun.

[stivesnick]

Hi Andy

 

It is up to you to decide what yout priorities are. There are many fine N Gauge layouts that use code 55 track and if getting something up and running is a priority, then go for code 55 track. Perhaps practice the point building for the next layout.

 

I am using code 55 track on my new layout. The new unifrog points are great if you are using DCC as all routes are powered. If using DC then remember to add extra sections or take out some wires.

 

Regards 

 

Nick 

[AndyB]

Thank-you @AndrueC and @stivesnick for your thoughts.

 

I think the final straw was seeing the servo  motor "snap" the point blades across like a solenoid would do, rather than gently swing them across. Frustratingly this hadn't happened on any of my other points. 

 

What I will continue with is the use of servos. On the fiddle yard I've used the Code 55 unifrogs, taking the spring out so they worked nicely with servos.

 

I also liked that the unifrogs worked reliably even with my smallest tank engine (Dapol M7) straight out of the box. 

 

On balance, and having consulted swmbo, I think reverting to RTP Peco is for the best. This hasn't been a happy or fun experience for quite a while. And it'd be good to get back to enjoying the hobby.

 

[Artless Bodger]

That is good news that even an M7 will run on the unifrog points. 

 

While I admire the skill and the patience of Job that the fine scale modellers put into their layouts, I remind myself it is a hobby, not a penance. 

[Steven B]

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

I think the final straw was seeing the servo  motor "snap" the point blades across like a solenoid would do, rather than gently swing them across. Frustratingly this hadn't happened on any of my other points. 

 

If a servo has driven the blades across like a solenoid would then I'd be looking for alternative servo driver hardware. 

 

As others have said, there's been plenty of not-worthy layouts built from code 55 (or even code 80) track - there's plenty can be done to improve the running through Peco's pointworks for example.

 

Steven B

[AndyB]

@Steven B mostly the servo controller behaves itself. May have been a "Monday morning" thing. 

 

For me getting the ballasting right is key. Too many decent layouts spoiled by ballast that looks like boulders. 

[woodenhead]

On 05/02/2024 at 18:32, AndyB said:

So. Early in January I posted about initial success building a finescale point. 

 

Unfortunately when I returned to it today to add dropper wires parts of it fell off. And not easily re-affixed either as the rails around it are secured in place.

 

 

I was able to repair other parts of the webbing that broke during the build.

A previous point kit I'd used as a test piece suffered from the chairs disintegrating during the build and had to be thrown away.

 

All things considered I'm not convinced that continuing with finescale is right for me.

 

Whilst the finished product looks great - and only yesterday I saw a very nice layout featuring these points - I'm coming to the conclusion that the overall layout build will stall completely. Reverting to Code 55 may be the more pragmatic way forward.

 

I'm not throwing in the towel quite yet on finescale. But the time to take a different approach is drawing near. 

 

 

Kind of what I was worried would happen to me if I attempted these points - my own thinking is join the 2mm FS society and build copperclad to N gauge standards (as well as a dabble in 2mm seperately).  Solder balls can make enough of an impression on the side of the soldered track to give the impression of a chair and the result can be a strong clean point.

[AndyB]

@woodenhead sounds like a plan. I think with copper clad you'd have the chance to unsolder, adjust and re-solder. Whereas i suspect with the plastic webbing approach there's a finite number of times you can slide rails in and out before they fail.

 

If I've understood you'd stick with N gauge but hand-built your track? Does that mean you'd not need to change wheelsets on rolling stock?

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, AndyB said:

If I've understood you'd stick with N gauge but hand-built your track? Does that mean you'd not need to change wheelsets on rolling stock?

That would be the plan - use 2mm Society parts but an N gauge track gauge.

 

Currently reading their book on track and building it and then I'll be building two small layouts one in N and the other 2mm FS.  I want to stretch myself but also recognise I am not about to convert all my N gauge.  No hurry I've a perfectly satisfying N station at present.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

35 minutes ago, AndyB said:

For me getting the ballasting right is key. Too many decent layouts spoiled by ballast that looks like boulders. 

I’ve got that T-shirt!  
 

Made the mistake with an OO micro layout a few years ago of using Ballast sold for 4mm scale - not realising it’s standard practice to use ballast for the next scale down!  That project went no further.  Shame was I’d spent ages widening the sleeper spacing on the OO track I was using, removing the webbing and making it look like track spaced for UK use.

 

A bit like @AndyB and his point (though I was far less brave), widening the sleeper spacing was something I’d been keen to try, but just did not enjoy (at all).  Meant I could decide to accept the compromise that is commercial trackwork knowing I had at least had a go at an alternative (of sorts).  One day I’d like to try handbuilt track, but probably not on a layout.  Keith.

[Artless Bodger]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Made the mistake with an OO micro layout a few years ago of using Ballast sold for 4mm scale - not realising it’s standard practice to use ballast for the next scale down!

That's a useful hint thank you - I have left over N ballast now I've returned to OO, so not wasted. My old OO ballast can be stone loads for wagons.

[AndyB]

@Keith Addenbrooke fwiw I used chinchilla dust on the last layout. But I might think to sieve it this time to get the finest grade possible. 

[woodenhead]

And I've been told use sugar for coal in 2mm scale.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

3 hours ago, AndyB said:

@Keith Addenbrooke fwiw I used chinchilla dust on the last layout. But I might think to sieve it this time to get the finest grade possible. 

For N Gauge you will probably need to sieve it.  For my H0e / HOn30 mini-layout I used Calci-sand (another pet shop product):

 

 

Being a sand, it did turn the colour of, well, sand, when I wetted it, so it wouldn’t work for everyone, but the size was OK for 9mm gauge track in the larger scale, Keith.

 

[Artless Bodger]

14 hours ago, woodenhead said:

And I've been told use sugar for coal in 2mm scale.

That begs the question of what to use to glue it and colour it? I've sometimes thought while making a cup of coffee that the instant granules would make good ironstone loads for 2mm but again how to prevent it absorbing moisture but retain the matt appearance.

 

I did raid Head Gardener's grit sand for ballast once (with permission), sieved to remove the grit. Would represent beach as used by the SER.