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

[Siberian Snooper]

You will need to use some thin card to pack up the bullhead to match the flat bottom, when I have done it on models I use several thin layers and start with a length around 75 mm in length the 2nd 50 mm in length and possibly a 3rd layer 30mm long to give a reasonable transition. The real thing just uses more ballast packing.

 

 

[hayfield]

15 hours ago, NFWEM57 said:

Thank you, and I appreciate and understand your comments about the retail business. 

 

My comments were not a criticism of either retailer, just an update to an earlier post in this thread regarding the dimensions of suitable FB rail.  It would seem the only way to get the dimensions of rail is, as I have done, buy some and measure it...!  I ruled out that using that option across the board because of the high cost, potential waste and because before I part with hard cash, I usually like to know exactly what I am buying to avoid disappointment.  I guess I am therefore one of those annoying people who, for good reason, wants to discuss things before getting their wallet out..! 

 

Thus far on this FB voyage of discovery I have had to purchase most components blind and although there has been some waste, fortunately it is not as much as it could have been; eBay might allow me to recover some of that wasted outlay.  Hopefully, what I share here will contribute in some small way to allow others to make a more informed decision on going down the FB path and/or what to purchase.  At the moment there is precious little information out there; that i could find at least.

 

 

Sometimes its very difficult to separate what we described in the late 60's/70's as TW's (time wasters) this was when I was in the photographic trade. During the week it was not an issue as the shop was normally empty, but at weekends when we were very busy t was an issue. The same can be said about trade shows, it is very difficult to differentiate between genuine requests for information and someone who just wants to have a chat, these chats are not an issue when the stand is empty, but causes issues for the customers and the trader at busy times

 

I have C&L code 82 rail flat bottom rail 

Height     2.1mm

Width of foot   1.74mm

width of head    0.75mm

width of web   0.38mm

 

Sorry I cannot assist with SMP code 75 flatbottom rail

 

The other thing is batches of rail will change minutely over the years, my farther was a wire drawer and had to check the thickness if the wire being drawn during each run, Dies have a life expectancy and as they wear the items size increases, providing its within the tolerances its fine. But with profit margins being thin sometimes its tempting for suppliers to use dies longer than they should  

[NFWEM57]

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

I have C&L code 82 rail flat bottom rail 

Thank you very much for sharing the information on C&L Code 82 and on mechanical wear and tolerances.

 

I am aiming to scratch build, as best I can with the very limited components available, flat bottom turnouts as close to prototype as possible.  Having researched a little more on the prototype it would be ideal if all the components to permit the scratch building of  turnouts with shallow depth asymmetric switches rails - it would have saved a lot of filing...!  But it seems I must implement something akin to BS113A Vertical or, more likely, its metric equivalent CEN56E1, with the available components.  I doubt that reduced height asymmetric switch rail will ever be manufactured (even though it is in widespread use on the prototype) which somewhat negates manufacturing the relevant slide plates (which could easily be manufactured).  I did mull over using Code 60 FB rail, suitably filed, as the asymmetric switch rail and Code 82 for the stock rails but there are no suitable slide baseplates to match although existing PECO ones could be modified.  Perhaps another 'turnout in a bag' idea for C&L for shallow depth FB turnouts with very little filing required...!  Ah well, a compromise (with a lot of milling or filing) it will have to be for me at least.

 

On photography, another pastime of mine, I watched a friends business close down as the internet took hold.  People would try (in the shop) before they bought (on line).  I still support my remaining local photo stores by buying in person or via their on line portals.

Edited December 28, 2023 by NFWEM57
typo

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, NFWEM57 said:

Thank you very much for sharing the information on C&L Code 82 and on mechanical wear and tolerances.

 

I am aiming to scratch build, as best I can with the very limited components available, flat bottom turnouts as close to prototype as possible.  Having researched a little more on the prototype it would be ideal if all the components to permit the scratch building of  turnouts with shallow depth asymmetric switches rails - it would l have saved a lot of filing...!  But it seems I must implement something akin to BS113A Vertical or, more likely, its metric equivalent CEN56E1, with the available components.  I doubt that reduced height asymmetric switch rail will ever be manufactured (even though it is in widespread use on the prototype) which somewhat negates manufacturing the relevant slide plates (which could easily be manufactured).  I did mull over using Code 60 FB rail, suitably filed, as the asymmetric switch rail and Code 82 for the stock rails but there are no suitable slide baseplates to match although existing PECO ones could be modified.  Perhaps another 'turnout in a bag' idea for C&L for shallow depth FB turnouts with very little filing required...!  Ah well, a compromise (with a lot of milling or filing) it will have to be for me at least.

 

On photography, another pastime of mine, I watched a friends business close down as the internet took hold.  People would try (in the shop) before they bought (on line).  I still support my remaining local photo stores by buying in person or via their on line portals.

 

For years now track building has been the Cinderella of the model railway scene, with in someways finescale Flatbottom era suffering more than bullhead. I guess if one has the skills you could design them to be 3D printed, but other than some of the more distinctive switch and check rail designs, would anyone recognize if it was correct or not, especially when viewed from a distance

 

Am I correct in remembering that you are modelling in 00SF?  If so this excludes you from using the excellent Exactoscale turnout and crossing bases which are in S4 gauge but can be used unmodified in many cases for EM gauge

 

Templates (plans) for turnouts and crossings are easily made in Templot for flatbottom rail in most 4mm gauges, so plans for prototypically are easily available. For those working in bullhead there is a super 3D experimental system which is being developed and freely available to use as is the track design program. Sadly there are no fixings for flatbottom rail in development, however I have found C&L chairs stick to the track bases using Butanone. Normally these track bases are printed with slots for the plug track chairs to drop into, the bases can be printed easily without slots

 

 

This is a 3D printed, then painted 0-16.5 A6 turnout base, I intend to glue then pin code 100 Flatbottom rail to the turnout base.

 

There is nothing stopping anyone printing these non track bases in any 4mm gauge (even narrow gauge). These track bases are 3.6mm deep (to accept the plug chairs, again nothing stopping the user to print these bases to 1.6 mm deep, as in my opinion (guess) the bases without plug holes would be strong enough.

 

Certainly you could design these bases to whatever geometry you require and my trial of sticking a C&L plastic chair to a FDM PLA+ printed sleeper still holds very firm (I just have managed to prize it off with a scalpel ) it's as good as plastic to ply. And the compromise of using plastic clips with code 82/83fb rail may be possible. Given the bases cost about 50p each to print there is quite a saving against existing plastic alternatives

 

Good luck with your quest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NFWEM57]

1 minute ago, hayfield said:

m I correct in remembering that you are modelling in 00SF? 

Hi,  EM gauge.

 

The more I mull over using code 60 for the shallow depth asymmetric switch blades, the more it seems it might be a reasonable solution.  I can modify the PECO slide baseplates by adding a 0.3~0.4mm thick additional pad on top which serves 2 purposes, it raised the slide pad area to match the code 60 rail and also locks in the stock rail.  The prototype slide trackpads look like this (link to honour copyright):

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdp-railsystems.com%2Ffileadmin%2Fmediamanager%2Frailsystems%2FProdukte%2FSlide-Chair-Plates-2.jpg&tbnid=lzLBQ-fgj8o_WM&vet=12ahUKEwjX4OmhpbKDAxUWVKQEHRgGDf8QMygAegQIARAy..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdp-railsystems.com%2Fen%2Fproducts%2Fslide-chair-plates&docid=L-AinEnpetk_TM&w=2000&h=1333&q=shallow depth slide chair plate&ved=2ahUKEwjX4OmhpbKDAxUWVKQEHRgGDf8QMygAegQIARAy

 

 

In use in practice:

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fcms%2F10.1177%2F0954409715624723%2Fasset%2Fimages%2Flarge%2F10.1177_0954409715624723-fig3.jpeg&tbnid=l4vZbi2CGZp7_M&vet=12ahUKEwi0t5O3pbKDAxU6f6QEHS93CgUQMygAegUIARCZAQ..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1177%2F0954409715624723&docid=VZ9ehqUWvQ4SAM&w=1700&h=1057&q=railway shallow depth slide baseplate&ved=2ahUKEwi0t5O3pbKDAxU6f6QEHS93CgUQMygAegUIARCZAQ

 

I'll just add 0.3~0.4mm thick pad on the existing PECO slide chairs to take up the height difference.  After the slide chairs the rail revert to full height code 82.

 

 

[NFWEM57]

Happy New Year..!

 

Santa delivered the PWI book on FB switches and crossing and an interesting 'read' it has been.   (The one issue is the binding which has already failed - so a 3 ring binder will be used to house it)

 

From the history section it seems that vertical design flat bottom designs for turnouts came into being in 1967 and were by adopted by all regions by 1970, over half a century ago.  A further major change came about in 1987 with the introduction of shallow depth switches which eliminated the need to plane the stock rails to accommodate the switch rails.  These have been in use for nearly 40 years.  A reduced height switch rail is used, asymmetrical in profile, which is placed on a raised slide plate; drawing is worth a thousand words - pandrol and other fastenings not shown for clarity.

 

 

At the heel end of the switch rail there is a forged transition section which expands the switch rail back to full height, another drawing.

 

 

Of course, for modelling, the rail profile is not available and such a transition is not possible.  However, PECO code 60 rail can be used as a reduced height substitute and for the most of its length is planed, yet another drawing  

 

 

 

 

The transition section can be made by tapering the end of the full height closure rail and joining it to the code 60 switch rail with brass fishplates.  For the slide chairs, the PECO ones are used with a 0.4mm thick pad paced over the existing pad which locks the stock rail in place and acts as a surface for the code 60 rail.  Of course, suitable slide pads could be 3D printed but I am not there yet.  The only other issue is suitable pandrol baseplates for the thinner base of the code 60 rail.  Again, probably a 3d printing solution.

 

The next task is to create a bespoke template in TEMPLOT to reflect the geometry of the modern turnouts; different sleeper/timber spacings and sizes.  Had a few attempts but get double sleepers around the crossing V areas.  Check rails are easy as they come in 4 standard sizes whilst the common crossings are pretty much a standard size (aside from the Vee rails) until the much larger turnouts sizes. 

 

As starter, I may construct a B8 turnout using a standard TEMPLOT FB template as a guide to see if the dual rail approach works.  Of course, the choice of baseplates is very limited but perhaps something 3D printing can overcome.   Another skill set to learn..!

 

Patrick

Edited January 11 by NFWEM57
typo, change to turnout size

[NFWEM57]

Update

 

Am busy updating my study / workshop so hence the quiet period - need a bit more desk space for FB track amongst other things.  I have also started a paper on the subject, currently at 12 pages for the introduction, prototype, model theory and required  tools stages.  Did think of calling it the Wright Brothers guide to Flat Bottom Turnouts.

 

Having attended a few club meetings of late, I am amazed at how many established modellers still think that FB modelling is not required because so much bullhead still exists on the prototype.  Bit of Egyption mythology methinks..! de Nile.

 

How do we attract younger modellers if we are focusing on track that was no longer used or replaced with new design over 50 years ago?  New image rolling stock is everywhere, but not new image track.

 

And for those who say that the track is not what people look at, why do C&L sell 2, 3 and 4 bolt chairs..!?

 

It is, and will be, a difficult transition, but a necessary one.

 

Patrick

 

Edited February 8 by NFWEM57
typo

[NFWEM57]

Update

 

Study / Workshop complete and organising all but complete.

 

Did consider using Templot to make the template but too many things to adjust, move and hide so used the drawing tools in MS Word. Have been using it for years and it is amazing what you can do with a little thought.  I drew sections 5 sleepers wide at 5 times scale for accuracy and then reduced to size and linked them together.

 

Bearer spacing (as they are called for Flat Bottom turnouts) is 710mm for the prototype with a width of 290mm, so 9.32mm apart and 3.8mm wide (same as PECO timbers).  The turnout is some 400mm in length and so I saved as a Pdf and used poster printing  option(available in the pdf viewer) to print out on an A4 laser printer.  Amazingly it is quite accurate with the distance between tracks of just over 18mm.

 

 

The template is just a guide for bearer positioning and which baseplates to use.  All the data, vast amounts of it, came from the latest PWI manuals.  The common crossing dimensions have been adjusted for a 1mm flangeway.

The first 4 bearers are plain with V baseplates followed by stock rail in full height rail and shallow height switch rails. Transition from shallow to full height rail occurs between  the orange and blue sleeper.  Not a lot of filing required, just the crossing V and the switch rail planing.

 

I'll begin assembly with laying the bearers and fitting the straight stock rail in a  few days time.

 

Patrick  

Edited April 1 by NFWEM57
typo

[NFWEM57]

Update - Construction Commenced

 

Final Template generated and bearers cut to size.   First 4 bearers on the left are PECO IL-111 and the remaining 41 bearers are PECO IL-114.   Both are around 1.25mm thick  IL-111 are 34mm long and 3.4mm wide whilst IL-114 are 3.9mm wide and a maximum of 88mm long.  The longest timber for the this B8VS is around 68mm, it will not be part of a crossover on the test layout.  The red rectangles between the rails are spacer or distance blocks.

 

 

 

Next steps will be to lay the bearers on the template and then fix the straight stockrail.  Unlike building a bullhead turnout, all chair plates for the stock rail will be fitted including slide plates.

 

One small roadblock on progress, my bottle of Butanone has evaporated as the cap had not been secured last October.  Just waiting for a resupply from C&L.  I may have just enough for the straight stock rail.

 

Patrick

[NFWEM57]

Update - Stock Rail Fitted, Shallow Depth Switch Rail assessment.

 

I have laid out the bearers and, with the remaining butanone, fitted the flat bottom straight stock rail.  I used a length of 15mm x 2mm of aluminium bar to ensure alignment of the straight side of the turnout.   A 10mm width length of double sided tape hold the bearers in position.

 

 

 

PECO plain baseplates and slide base plates are fitted to straight stock rail aside from 4 of the 8 bearers which will hold the check rail.

 

 

 

 

 

The moment of truth, has the theory been correct... Yes..!  The shallow depth switch rail represented by PECO Code 60 flat bottom rail is 0.5mm lower when resting on the slide chairs.  The PECO Pandrol baseplates are too wide for Code 60 rail but the C&L base plates provided with C&L concrete bearers are narrower and a good fit and also raise the code 60 rail by around 0.5mm.  For this first attempt, the C&L baseplates will sit on top of the 4 PECO slide plates at positions 15~18.  The slide plates at positions 5~14 will have new more representative slide plates, 0.5mm thick, sitting on top of the existing slide plates; in the prototype they look like plain slabs of metal - bit plasticard will do.   The images below show the two rails side by side and the area where the transition from code 60 to code 83 takes place. The outer face of the closure rail heads (code 83) will be tapered to match the width of the code 60 rail.  For most of the length of the code 60 rail it is planed so it will not look too odd. 

 

 

 

 

 

Good progress so far but a few observations and tips.

 

The PECO plastic does require a bit if holding in place once the solvent is applied and use a fin pair of tweezer to move base plates into position.  The PECO pandrol baseplates are very fragile, taper the foot of the rail slightly to aid fitting.  The C&L baseplate are very fiddly to fit, once again, taper the rail.

 

The next steps will be making the crossing CV, check and wing rails.  In addition, some modifications are required to existing 3 point and roller gauges, the code 83 rail head is slightly thicker than code 75, as well as the manufacture of bespoke roller gauges for the switch rail area, one side will be code 60, the other code 83.

 

Patrick

Edited April 11 by NFWEM57
Duplicate images

[NFWEM57]

 While Waiting for the Butanone....

 

One thing needed for this and future turnout projects is a crossing vee soldering jig.  I did see one on an older RM Web thread but thought I would upgrade it a little and give it the ability to handle both bullhead and flat bottom rail.    The 2mm holes were a bit small for hand tapping so i used a spiral point tap with a tap follower mounted in a pillar drill. 

 

Jig now ready to solder crossing V.   No flat bottom filing jig so it will be by 'eye'; perhaps another project for the future.  First images with a bullhead 1:9.

 

 

 

And with flat bottom track (not yet filed)  and finally, the jig on its own.  Cost about £20 to make.  If you use plain machine screws it would be cheaper. 

 

  

 

Butanone arrived yesterday, new bottle style so will need to make a new anti knock over holder..!  Or just decant into the old bottle.

 

Patrick

Edited April 14 by NFWEM57
typo

[NFWEM57]

Crossing Vee, First Attempt for Flat Bottom Rail

 

There being no suitable filing jigs for flat bottom rail, the crossing Vs were manufactured by hand using the Gauge O Guild method (https://www.gaugeoguild.com/manual/02_2_6_Pointwork.pdf) as a guide.  I bent the last 6mm of rail and more or less followed the guide.  I filed a small recess in the point rail for the splice rail to 'slot' into.  A few pictures before, during and after assembly.   The foot of the flat bottom rails on the running edges near the crossings nose did need to be trimmed back so that the wing and check rails have the required 1mm clearance.   I will trim the vee ends to place them in the middle of two sleepers with the nose of the crossing vee correctly placed.

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

Hand building the crossing vee is not ideal and milling the blades would be a better option, much faster and more accurate.  The solder jig needs a slight modification, the clamps need to be seperate.

 

On to the wing and check rails and once I have manufactured them I can work out how I am going to secure the vee  and wing/check rails given my limited baseplate options...! 

[NFWEM57]

Common Crossing

 

Manufactured the 2 wing/check rails with the usual bends as we have with bullhead but with the inner faces of the check rails tapered as per the prototype. 

 

 

 

Positioned the crossing vee with 4 pandrol baseplates where the vee is clear of the check rails and a cut down slide baseplate on the inside of the vee. 

 

 

The wing/check rail are shown in place but have yet to be secured.   I am waiting for a some additional parts which will allow me to set the distance between the vee and check rails at 1mm.  I will be using slide baseplates to hold the check rails in position and proved support for both vee and check rails.  The wing rails will be held in place with pandrol baseplates, obviously cosmetic only at the neck.  The taper on the check rails can bee seen on the final image. 

 

  

 

Once the parts arrive in the next day or so I can finish the common crossing  and the rest of the turnout is relatively straightforward, aside form the switch blade profiling which I will start now whilst there is a break in assembly.

 

Patrick

 

[NFWEM57]

Straight Switch Blade

 

Once again, no jigs, all by hand and eye..!

The first of two shallow depth switch blades made from code 60 rail.  The side opposite the running face has the foot and head filed back to taper over the  required 46mm of planing length.  

 

 

The head  of the rail on the running face is filed back to taper over 46mm.   Finally, the top of the rail head is filed back to form a vertical taper some 23mm long.

 

 

The code 60 rail (should) fit snugly inside the web of the flat bottom rail as can be seen below, Difficult to hold the two rail together in one's fingers whilst trying to get a macro shot..!  Hopefully, the concept is clear. 

 

 

 

Once the ordered parts arrive, I'll test fit this before I make another.  Might need fine tuning.  I may attempt to mill (using a pillar drill with a compound table) another one.  The hand made one took an hour.  Milling one would take minutes provide the rail can be held firmly enough.  

 

Patrick

 

[NFWEM57]

Common Crossing, Straight Closure and Straight Switch Rail Fitted.

 

Well a few lesson learnt around the common crossing area, not as simple as bullhead but have solutions going forward.  Discovered th etip of the crossing vee was misaligned after fitting, have solution for that as well for this example.

 

 

Unlike for bullhead, the diverging stock rail must be fitted and secured before the switch rail is fitted, I gauged off the wing rails then followed gauged off the diverging closure rail on the template, it worked.

 

Usual electrical isolation at the wing rail.

 

 

 

 

I tapered the heel end of the straight closure rail to match the width of the switch rail, possibly should have tapered the foot as well. 

 

  

 

The original slide chairs have 0.5mm thick slide plates fitted on top to raise the height for the code 60 rail.  I know, they are white, i couldn't find any 0.5 x 2.5mm strip in black.  And they do not fit using butanone, slow zap was used.

 

 

The code 60 rail undercuts the code 83 rail at the toe as can be seen.  With a tie bar fitted the blade will fit snugly under the head of the stock rail.

 

 

 

So, a few errors along the way but a few months research and design work and the concept has been proven.  Bespoke shallow depth slide chair baseplate's and transition area baseplates could easily be 3d printed, ditto some items around the common crossing.

In fact, all that is required are maybe 3 types of baseplates to add to the PECO pandrol baseplate:

• Shallow Depth Slide Baseplate
• Shallow Depth Pandrol Baseplate for the fixed/transition area.
• Combined Stock and Check Rail baseplate (using check rail as per the prototype made from flat bottom rail)

Now to finish the other side, add the check rails, wire up, strengthen and correct in places.  I will modify the design in a couple of places and manufacture another before making up a test board with concrete track to test the turnout with a range of locos.

 

Not sure, but I think I might be the first to have done this..!

 

Patrick

Edited April 20 by NFWEM57
Additional Info

[NFWEM57]

Diverging Switch Rail, Closure rail and Check Rails - Assembly Complete

The diverging closure rail and switch rail have been fitted as well as the two check rails.

 

 

 

 

Note the two stage taper on the check rails.

 

 

Overall view. 

 

 

Alongside a recently complet bullhead B9 crossover.  Note the thicker bearers and longer wing/check rails.  

 

 

A few modifications to assembly, for scratch building, required:

• Assemble the common crossing separately in a jig soldering the crossing vee and wing/check rails together using thin copper strip place to avoid the bearers.  A jig rather like that sold by the EMGS will need to be manufactured.   Soldered at 34/35 (the neck), 35/36 the crossing nose and 38/39 the check rails. This still allows baseplates to be fitted but provides the alignment accuracy required before assembly.
• Curve the diverging check rail to match the diverging stock rail.
• Use regular pandrol baseplates at bearers 15~18 and use 0.4mm thick pads to mount the C&L baseplate's onto. 
• Use pandrol baseplates for the check rail area and use and modified code 83 rail upside down, one side made flush with the web, the other side with the head removed leaving just the foot (now at the top) as the check rail edge.  Glued into a ABS plastic holder the, the prototype ones are quite substantial, the assembly can then be secured using MEK.

Whilst a test bogie has run through freely aside from a small issue with the common crossing on the diverging route, this first attempt will not be used on any layout, the second version will be.  I will be using British Finescale Tie Bars, Wayne kindly sent me some, and, given the more fragile nature of the code 60 rail, will be fitting 2 (as per the prototype), the one nearest the toe driven.

 

Was it worth it, yes.  Because it saved a lot of filing and I discovered that very few new additional baseplate types are required, possibly just 2; the shallow depth slider baseplate and the shallow depth rail pandrol baseplate.  And that means scratch building modern turnouts can become a reality.  The plethora of chairs required for bullhead turnout are simply not required for a flat bottom turnout.  Actually, having undertaken the Normal Solomon track building course, it appear, in practice, not many are really required for bullhead scratch building either..!!!!

 

Any constructive comments most welcome.  Thanks for the feedback and reactions thus far. 

 

Patrick

Edited April 20 by NFWEM57
typo

[NFWEM57]

Reflection on Jigs, How to bend flat bottom rail.  Next steps.

 

Two of the jigs critical to scratch track building are the crossing vee and the switchblades.  Whilst these are available for bullhead, none, as far as I am aware, are available for flat bottom rail.  And if making them oneself, neither are there any jigs.

 

Martin Wynne, of Templot fame, has developed and 3D printed such jigs, but I think once again, they are for bullhead rail. in any case I don't own a 3D printer...!  The only solution viable solution to the crossing vee jig issue are those made by Fast Tracks although the switchblade part of the jig is obviously of no use for shallow depth switch rails.  Moreover, they are single size per jig, unlike 4 sizes per jig like the current bullhead offerings, and quite expensive; both the items and shipping.  With a need for 2 x 1:8, 5 x 1:10 and  5 x 1:12, and made up bullhead crossing vees costing £22  (the flat bottom would be similar) the cost is £264 plus shipping, say £12, so £276 total.    The cost of 3 jigs and shipping from Canada is £176 including shipping.  Add in 20% VAT and possible 10% customs and the cost rises to £229.   So, have bitten the bullet and ordered.  I did notice when browsing that the Fast Track Jigs come in various styles. I ordered one #12 Point Form Filing Jig and a #8 and #10 Crossing Point Form Filing Jig.  The crossing point form filing jigs are the same as the point form filing jig but with an additional angle for making the sharper vees for double crossovers.  It increased the overall bill by £3.   So the 1:8 has an additional 1:4 crossing vee slot, whilst the 1:10 has an additional 1:5 crossing vee slot.  Whilst these ratios do not match those required for a UK double crossing, they might be useful for other purposes.  Somebody did suggest on an american forum just buying the 1:12 as then you can make any angle you want down to 1:4 simply by filling in with solder.  See why their trains don't go very fast..!!

 

The solution for the switchblades might be simpler, I think the bullhead switchblade jig can be used, at least for part of the process.

 

One of the issues I had when bending flat bottom rail to make wing/check rails is that is distorts the rail so one leg of the wing/check rail is raised and may be twisted.  This means the rail does not sit flat and the railhead is misaligned.  The solution is to file a v slot into the foot of the rail just up to the web, maybe slightly less, on the side where the bend is  to be made inwards. 

 

 

The rail can then be bent with minimal distortion.  Image on the left with the 'nick' and on the right without.  Notice the rail has lifted and twisted when the other half of the wing/check rail is held flat.

 

 

 

Hopefully, I am not teaching people to suck eggs on bending rail..!

 

Whilst I await the jigs from Canada I will make a common crossing assembly jig.  I only have 3 sizes, so not complicated.

 

Patrick

[NFWEM57]

Update - Final cost of 3 jigs from Canada is £235.74.  Customs cost £33.35 with £12.90 brokerage charges.  Mail option might not have attracted the brokerage charge.

 

Parts for common crossing soldering jig have arrived.  I'll make a 1:8 jig first, the rest are similar. 

[Stephen Freeman]

I think you could have probably got a suitable printer for no more than the cost of the jigs plus customs, so you could have both the printer and the jigs for about the same. "I could be wrong but don't think I am!" Now just where have I heard that before??

[NFWEM57]

13 hours ago, Stephen Freeman said:

I think you could have probably got a suitable printer for no more than the cost of the jigs plus customs

Hi thanks for the advice.  But no experience of 3d printing or making 3d printing files, so very steep learning curve.  The templot jigs are bullhead I believe.

 

I can use the Fast Track jigs straight out of the box and I need my second prototype, with all the design changes, for a show in a few weeks time as well as a 3rd prototype for my test track which is getting an update in May 24.

 

Will starting the second prototype this weekend and hopefully finish by Monday 6th.

 

Patrick

 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:50 by NFWEM57
typo

[hayfield]

Patrick

 

I have one of the 1-6 jigs, designed for c0de 75 to 100 flatbottom rail, but also code 75 bullhead works in it. Very easy to use if expensive, but repays itself in time saving and accuracy

 

Templot 3D is for bullhead rail, however the reusable filing jigs for both common crossings and switch rails are some of the best around, certainly the most versatile and cheapest, but bullhead only 

[NFWEM57]

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

have one of the 1-6 jigs

Hi,

 

Thank for your continued interest and comments.  I have the EMGS supplied case hardened steel bullheads jigs for 4~8 and 9~12 and A to D switches.  Needed FB jigs for half the track on my planned layout.  Mainline FB turnouts and concrete track, branch lines all bullhead.

 

Surprising how little filing is required for a shallow depth FB turnouts which have been around on the prototype for quite a while.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick 

 

 

[njee20]

Great watching this develop. Really like the use of the code 60 to nest inside the code 83. Even operating in code 40 filing rails is really, really dull!

[NFWEM57]

10 hours ago, njee20 said:

Even operating in code 40 filing rails is really, really dull!

Thank you. That is the reason I researched modern, now over 40 years old, track engineering and came up with this solution...!  It works for OO & EM but P4 solutions will still have a bit of filing to undertake in the check rail areas to reduce the width of the foot of the rails.

 

Patrick