Flat Bottom Rail, Track base and Turnout Baseplates for Scratch Building

[NFWEM57]

After a bit of a battle with the prototype common crossing solder jig (separate thread) I have managed to make a flat bottom common crossing.  Now I can progress the 2nd flat bottom shallow depth turnout. 

 

  

 

 

Not perfect, but progress..!  Once again, lots of lessons from making the first common crossing solder jig for flat bottom rail.

 

Patrick

Edited May 5 by NFWEM57
typo

[NFWEM57]

Prototype 2 Progress

 

After the diversion to develop a comom crossing jig for flat bottom, seperate thread, work has begun on the the 2nd prototype which is somewhat different to the first:

• A pre assembled common crossing used.
• 0.5mm black plasticard is used to make the raised slide plates
• 0.75mm back plasticard is used to make a mounting plate for the fixed part pf the shallow depth rail (4 sleepers)
• The check rails (for the stock rails)  wil be glued in place, the check rails is an inverted code 83 flat bottom rail filed flat on one side; this resemble the bespoke check rail used on the prototype.

A few pictures of progress thus far:

 

 

The slide chairs are modified by slicing off the bolt heads top allow the raised slide plate to sit flat.  I need a better MEK applicator..!

 

 

The pre assembled common crossing in place.  Test bogie ran through very smoothly. 8.5mm nose to neck distance is correct.

 

 

So what does it cost, approximately, to make a flat bottom shallow depth turnout from scratch, time and consumables excluded..!

• Two 1m lengths of EMGS Code 83 flat bottom rail (£5.16)
• About 0.5m of PECO Code 60 Flat Bottom Rail (£1.61)
• Around one pack of PECO timbers (£5.50)
• Around 98 PECO pandrol baseplates (£2.90)
• Around 18 PECO slide plate (£2.75)
• Plasticard, 0.5mm and 0.75mm
• Sundries

Around £18~£20 for a B8.

 

Work will now get in the way of pleasure for a few days but I will finish prototype #2 by Friday.

 

Patrick

Edited May 6 by NFWEM57
typo & additional info

[heavymetalwagons]

many thanks for your posting . I've just started looking into making track and both your threads are very useful (a picture is a thousand words)

just ordered the BR permanent way track book 1956 version (so a lot of  reading there to confuse myself!!!)

really like your vee jig (my well copy) 

many thanks keep up the good work 

[RBAGE]

Have you got a link to the common crossing jig?

Bob

[NFWEM57]

2 hours ago, RBAGE said:

Have you got a link to the common crossing jig?

Hi,

 

Thank you for your interest.  No link as I have just designed & developed it myself.  May yet change the design but when complete I will upload a note on construction which is fairly simple.  It is for modern flat bottom track only as the bearer (what sleepers are called for flat bottom) spacing is different as are the bearer widths.  There is a bullhead common crossing jig available from the EMGS.

 

Patrick

[NFWEM57]

5 hours ago, heavymetalwagons said:

really like your vee jig (my well copy) 

Hi,

 

Thank you for your comments.  I will be uploading construction notes in due course for both the crossing vee jg and the common crossing jig.

 

On the PWI handbooks, I have the 3rd edition (1964) and it is focused mainly on bullhead and early flat bottom solutions.  I then acquired the 5th edition (1979) which contain a bit more about full height flat bottom switches and crossings.  It is only when you acquire the latest set, yes there are now 4 manuals, that you see modern track work described and that shallow depth turnouts and switches are the norm and have been for many years.  The books are not cheap but the information therein is invaluable.   There is a separate volume on bullhead switches and crossings and a thick volume on flat bottom switched and crossing which started me thinking about the art of the possible back in Jan 24. A few months research on top of the day job and here we are.

 

My next project will be shallow depth switched crossings as I need some 1:10 and 1:12 crossings for my planned layout.

 

Patrick

Edited May 6 by NFWEM57
Additional info

[roythebus1]

Just a thought, would it be possible to use the EMGS bullhead crossing jig with FB rail inserted upside down? It depends on whether the head of FB rail is the same as BH. It would also aid the soldering of thin shim as slide plates or whatever they're called.

[NFWEM57]

5 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

Just a thought, would it be possible to use the EMGS bullhead crossing jig with FB rail inserted upside down?

Good Morning,

 

The slots in the EMGS jig are to position copper clad sleepers so that the crossing vee and wing/check rails can be soldered in position.  It does not work for FB rail because the bearers for FB are wider and the bearer spacing is different.  A picture is a thousand words...

 

Note the width of the bearer at 8AV is wider than the slot in the jig and the spacing is different.

 

 

Hope this clarifies. 

 

Patrick

Edited May 7 by NFWEM57
typo

[hayfield]

4 hours ago, NFWEM57 said:

Good Morning,

 

The slots in the EMGS jig are to position copper clad sleepers so that the crossing vee and wing/check rails can be soldered in position.  It does not work for FB rail because the bearers for FB are wider and the bearer spacing is different.  A picture is a thousand words...

 

Note the width of the bearer at 8AV is wider than the slot in the jig and the spacing is different.

 

 

Hope this clarifies. 

 

Patrick

 

 

I may be miss-reading your account about how to use the EMGS common crossing jig (apologies if I have), whilst you are correct it will not work with flatbottom rail, the gaps are not for lining up timbers ** but for allowing thin PCB or metal shim * which you solder the rail to, when build a common crossing sub assembly

 

The EMGS instruction sheet, showing how to both build a jig then use it

https://emgs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/1_2_1_4_pages_all.pdf

 

* the strips should be the same thickness or thinner than the foot of the plastic chairs (0.5mm in 4mm & 1mm in 7mm)

 

** it is a multi angle gauge, where as the timber spacings will alter according to the angle of the Vee chosen and gauge being used

 

I don't know if the jig could be modified for FB rail, by adding thin strips to the top parts of the jig equal to the overhang of the foot. Allowing the rail head(s) to rest against the jig. it would certainly work with the first wing rail

Edited May 7 by hayfield

[NFWEM57]

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

I may be miss-reading

Hi,

 

Thank you, you are correct, it is not for the timbers..!  In my rush to get an answer out before departing for work, I got it wrong..! Apologies.  For bullhead, I assemble the common crossing in place so do not use the jig.

 

But, the jig is good for bullhead only.  Whilst the same approach for flat bottom could be used  there is an issue with clearance. Only 0.1mm space is available between vee and check rail foot so soldering the vee in place first will likely cause solder leakage thus preventing the correct check rail distance being achieved.  That is why I settled on the inverted assembly jig described in another thread.  That is not perfect but I have an idea for a jig the right way up. 

 

Thanks again for spotting my error.

 

Patrick

Edited May 7 by NFWEM57

[hayfield]

25 minutes ago, NFWEM57 said:

Hi,

 

Thank you, you are correct, it is not for the timbers..!  In my rush to get an answer out before departing for work, I got it wrong..! Apologies.  For bullhead, I assemble the common crossing in place so do not use the jig.

 

But, the jig is good for bullhead only.  Whilst the same approach for flat bottom could be used  there is an issue with clearance. Only 0.1mm space is available between vee and check rail foot so soldering the vee in place first will likely cause solder leakage thus preventing the correct check rail distance being achieved.  That is why I settled on the inverted assembly jig described in another thread.  That is not perfect but I have an idea for a jig the right way up. 

 

Thanks again for spotting my error.

 

Patrick

 

Patrick

 

I still think at least the first wing rail could be soldered together using this jig providing an appropriate piece/pieces of shim** are used, you are simply keeping the rails in line with each other

 

As for 0.1mm gap, providing the rail feet are within specification it should not cause any issues if the wing rails are accurately bent and shaped, however shaving a bit from the foot will not affect the crossing. The important bit is that both rail heads must be inline with each other through the crossing, then the wing rail position is set with a gauge between the vee and wing rails heads

 

** the width of the packing piece(s) must be at least the same or larger than the foot sticks out from the head

 

Edit

 

Regarding your own jig, in my view the important thing is to keep the heads in line !! 

Edited May 7 by hayfield

[NFWEM57]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

As for 0.1mm gap, providing the rail feet are within specification it should not cause any issues if the wing rails are accurately bent and shaped, however shaving a bit from the foot will not affect the crossing.

Hi,

 

Thank you for the suggestion.  The whole purpose of the exercise if to avoid all unnecessary filing...!  The current flat bottom common crossing jig I have developed avoids any filing but need refinement which may result in a revised jig which allows upright assembly of the common crossing in one go and with the correct gap; 1mm. 

 

Must crack on, need to get prototype 2 built by Friday, important milestone on Saturday.  So, refinements for prototype #3 will have to wait until after the milestone.  But, if you have to modify the bullhead jig a lot, you may as well build another jig...!

 

Patrick

[roythebus1]

I was thinking more along the line of the solid steel jigs produced by others, where you file the switch rails and v rails and can line up the V rails. 

[NFWEM57]

17 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

solid steel jigs produced by others,

The only ones I have seen available are for bullhead, I have not found a flat bottom version in the UK.  As I only need 3 sizes I purchased the Fast Track Jigs which can do both switch and vee rails for full height turnouts. However, full depth turnouts did not exist for very long in the UK before they were superseded by shallow depth turnouts (some 40 years ago) which are widely used on the continent.  So, the switch rail part of the Fast Tracks jigs are of no use to me.  Still, cheaper than buying a milling machine, the only other precision and repeatable alternative.

 

Lining up the vee rails for soldering in the bullhead jigs can be somewhat awkward, as others with far more experience than I have informed me, hence my crossing vee soldering jig.

 

As I stated at the start on my FB journey, there is precious little out there for the modern modeller and many of the more established modellers say it doesn't matter because there is still plenty of bullhead around.  Maybe on the preservation lines but on network rail there is very little, most replaced a long time ago.  The manufacture of prototypes 1 and 2 were moderately challenging, prototype 3 will be far easier and will be used on my test track.   Thereafter, manufacture for the planned layout, mixture of bullhead and flat bottom, will be relatively simple.

 

I am not sure when FB jigs will be available, if ever, given the investment by most individual track component providers into bullhead solutions.   So, no choice other than to make my own or buy from abroad.  One thing is for sure, IMHO and based on experience, none of the bullhead jigs are suitable for scratch building FB modern turnouts.

 

Patrick

Edited May 9 by NFWEM57
clarification

[NFWEM57]

Check Rails

 

In prototype #1, conventional flat bottom rail was used as the check or guard rail but this compromised the securing and alignment of the stock rail.   For prototype #2 the stock rails were secured adjacent to the check rails with standard pandrol baseplates which has the side on the running edge trimmed.  Modern check rails use a UIC 33 profile rail with height equivalent to Code 50 rail and has an asymmetric profile with a scale width of around 1mm to scale at the head .  The solution for prototype #2 is to use inverted code 83 rail with the foot on one side removed and the foot on the other side profiled as a check rail.   The check rail bearers have a 0.5mm shims added adjacent to the stock rail pandrols and the inverted rail is temporally positioned using pandrol baseplates at the ends mounted on sleeper cut offs to ensure the correct height.  With the rail  in position, slow zap is used to secure the rail and then a plasticard buttress is pushed up again the rail and secured using slow zap.

 

The stock rail and inverted check rail baseplate combination is clearly suitable for a 3d printed solution similar to that available for bullhead.  But, it is early days. 

 

[NFWEM57]

Build Progress

 

Turnout now ready for check and switch rail installation.

 

 

The shallow height rail is installed to the left of the closure rails.  Note th etapering of the rail head on the code 83 to match  the code 60 width, cosmetic rather than functional.  On a 3d printed track base, the dual rail baseplate's and the distance blocks (red) would part of the print. 

 

The usual arrangement for common crossing isolation.

 

 

And the other end. Note the tapers on the check rails which means the check rail gauge is only effective at the centre of the check rail..! 

 

 

Aim to complete tomorrow.

 

 

[dj_crisp]

This is looking very good! I agree with your sentiment that not enough FB is modelled and I include steam era models!

 

My FB track wasn't all built by me but I've had to do alot of adjustment to mine. One thing ive experienced over time is gauge narrowing on my plastic built points which I don't get on bullhead. So I've resorted to copperclad and soldering to keep in gauge in the key areas. Problem for me is that it's all been on already laid track and the copperclad isn't a great match to the plastic ones. I'm hoping no one really notices!

[NFWEM57]

11 hours ago, dj_crisp said:

This is looking very good!

Hi,

 

Thank you for your comments, much appreciated.  Interesting comment on plastic built points and gauge narrowing.  I have had British Finescale turnouts in the most extreme environment for 3 year; a conservatory which ranges from 3 to 45 degree centigrade with daily 20 degree excursions with no issues.  However, my scratch built track has yet to be laid on my test track.   We shall see...! Thanks for the tip.

[NFWEM57]

Check Rails

 

A labour of love with regard to filing but only took 30 minutes or so for both check rails.

 

Inverted flat bottom rail with one foot filed almost flat and the other tapered as per the prototype.  Mount with slow zap and, when turnout complete, copper strips added to bind the check rail to the stock rail (as Martin Wynne alway recommends) and provide the support and strength required.  For the prototype, the support for the check rails are right angled buttresses.  3mm thick plasticard difficult to cut into tiny triangles..!  Check rails an obvious candidate for milling...!  More pictures.

 

 

If you are at the EMGS Expo at Bracknell tomorrow, I will be there in the morning and will have prototype #1 with me which I will leave at the EMGS stand for viewing.  Prototype #1 far from perfect but show the art of the possible regarding modelling shallow depth turnouts.

 

See you there.

 

Patrick

Edited May 10 by NFWEM57
typos

[heavymetalwagons]

well you've done it .you have reawakened  my interest in model railways again (started a load of various brake vans builds that still need to be finished but couldn't be arsed and put to one side)!!!

read the pwi 1956 book now (six times) doesn't help been a bit thick !! and have decided to build a 109lb early F.B point as I'm a P4 wagon basher of the 1978 ish period  any layout i do get round to building wound be still mainly bullhead track with  flat bottom on the main line .=more of an experiment/trail at track building 

I do like the idea of using peco bits to build the point cheapish with the odd c&l bits 

had a tidy out last week and found a peco catalogue  from the 50's they where leading the way in track parts and seem to have lost there way a bit since exactoscale/c&l take over 

you mentioned your track gauges been a bit "tight" I've made some from nuts and bolts and various different size washers/tube etc (using proper gauges as a check)  to add to my stock of gauges also made a couple of 3 point gauges (can do pics if anyone wants) without having to use my lathe/milling machine which i'm still learning how to use better 

any way thanks for restarting my interest .i'm off to peco to order some bits 

 

[NFWEM57]

2 hours ago, heavymetalwagons said:

well you've done it .you have reawakened  my interest in model railways again

Thank you for your comments.  I am glad I have sparked your interest again...!

 

For modern track, only the current PWI books are any good but, for bullhead,  the earlier copies are fine.  The current PWI volume purely on flat bottom turnouts and crossing is well over 500 pages.  I did build a bullhead B9 crossover using exactoscale parts whilst on a Norman Solomon track building course last year  It is fairly easy to make the crossing vee, common crossing and switch rails with the jigs available from the societies so, really, it is the cost of the rail and the few chair types required.  Costs are approx  £10~£20 for a turnout depending on type.   For the DCC concepts 3 point gauges it was just a few strokes with a swiss file and you can adjust the roller gauges, again dcc concepts, in an electric drill with a needles file.  The Alan Gibson check rail gauges were fine and needed no adjustment.

 

Happy modelling.

 

Patrick

 

 

[NFWEM57]

Update..!

 

Two steps forward one step backwards.  The 2nd prototype has a number of issues.  The shallow depth switch rail could not be gauged as I had secured the diverging stock tail too close.  So, I rescued part of the turnout from the common crossing onward and attempted to solder the check rails to the stock rails for securing but because of the height difference between the check and stock rails rather to much heat resulted in warped sleepers.  Salvaged the common crossing and started again. 

 

So, a change of plan.  For the next prototypes, 2 of the bearers, those at the check rail ends, will now be copper clad and the stock rail and check rails secured to them.  The height of the PECO bearers is 1.3mm and the copper clad are 1.6mm high so there should no issues with height as the baseplate bases are about 0.3mm thick.  Onward and upwards.. ! No pain, no gain..!  When 3d printed bearers become available the copper bearer solution will not be required, but for now..!

 

Ordered 4mm wide 1.6mm thick and 300mm long copper clad length from another place as I note that Phil of C&L is unwell which explains why he was not at the EMGS show recently.  Hopefully nothing too serious and I wish him a speedy recovery.

 

Thinking ahead, still working on a solution for soldering the switch rails tie the tie bars.  With the switch rail snug inside the stock rail there is a danger of soldering the two together...!  Wayne's N gauge approach may be required.

 

Be few days before I get the copper clad shipment.

 

Patrick

[heavymetalwagons]

sorry to hear of your setbacks . I never liked the solder near plastic method (i too wound melt stuff).

as for switch rails i'm going to try the brass lace pins method ie drill though rail solder /bend over /file the pin head down to fit in the stock rail web (hopefully!!!)

i think stretcher bars have always a trade off between functionality and looking like the real thing 

p.s i too am waiting for my c&l  order