Eastwood Town - A tribute to Gordon's modelling.

[Regularity]

Iron horses for model railway courses, as Jas says.

[Siberian Snooper]

I'd be inclined to go for moving the gap one timber. It might not be strictly prototypical, but once it's in, ballasted and weathered you won't notice it.

[dhjgreen]

I pivoted my 1:6 double slip blades using a fishplate (actually thin phosphor bronze strip)

[Chimer]

The link to the tubing supplier was invaluable.  When I get time, I'll do a cost comparison between tubing and my normal timber construction.  I suspect a single frame/legs/feet of typically 1200 x 600 will be more expensive, but as the tubing is much stronger, a unit of 2400 x 600 may well compare well against two timber frames as the number of corner joints and legs will be the same as a smaller unit.

 

 

Pleased to be of assistance!  If you are seriously considering this, I should add two things ...

 

Anywhere you form a horizontal T or X with the tubing, you need a leg - jointed tubes will flex at the joint otherwise.

 

Instead of "measure twice, cut once", the watchword is "plan twice, order once" - delivery costs are very reasonable, except when you find you need to order just one more length of tubing ..... 

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Edited December 5, 2017 by Chimer

[Michael Edge]

I also come from an engineering background and agreed 2-4BA screws would be a little light.  I tend to use M8 steel screws going into M8 prong nuts to hold ET boards together.  Of course the boards are much heavier and quite solid, unlike exhibition boards.  Just checked and a 2BA is only 4.7mm diameter and of course every time I think BA, I think small brass screws from my model aircraft days.

 

They must do the job as experience has shown, but I'd certainly use something more robust at home.

 

Track building, like most things, is easy if you do it most days.  Work on ET tends to come quite irregularly with a lot of action in the winter months and very little in the summer.  Sat down this afternoon and made a start on the switched crossing and whilst it is OK and passes all the running tests, I'm not happy about it so will scrap it tomorrow and start again.  Just one of those things. Having not built pointwork for six months I was making all sorts of errors and my head just wasn't in the right place.  It's only a couple of hours wasted and a few bits of material, so hardly the end of the world, but doing it a second time will eliminate all the stupid errors I made today.

 

One of the things I'm not happy about is the length of the switch rails.  I normally build pointwork to a crossing angle of 10 or greater.  This one is only a 7 and the blades are just 80mm long.  I started with just one solder 'chair' at A, but felt that just one solder joint at A would mean all the stress of the blade flex would only be on one joint, so I soldered another at B.  This effectively reduced the flex length to 65mm and with the torque action of the blades on the tie bar joint (similar to a slip), it's suddenly become quite stiff.  I'm sure a Tortoise motor will cope with it with a stiff action rod, but I would like to reduce the switching force if possible.

 

Would just one joint at A be sufficient?

 

I could move the rail break to C, but that would take it inside the check rails and may look strange.  This would allow me to move the joint at A back one sleeper and increase the flex length.

 

Any ideas?

 

A crossing angle of 7 is probably on the cusp of a fixed/switched crossing, so I guess I could make it a fixed crossing anyway if all else fails.

 

Scan.jpeg

 

If you have flexing switches they really need to be soldered to more than one sleeper, there are a lot of these switch diamonds on Carlisle and they were a problem at first with the Tortoise point motors. These just fit in the centre to operate both switches together but the blades were to stiff for the wire supplied with them, replacing the operating wires with .8mm piano wire fixed it though.

[gordon s]

Thanks for confirming one single solder joint isn't enough.  I thought that may be the case...

 

I already use 0.8mm piano wire for all my turnouts, so that's not an issue.  Interested in how you operate both switches with one motor as I've always used two.  I'm assuming it's some form of pivot linkage, but would certainly like to hear more about how this is accomplished.

[martin_wynne]

One of the things I'm not happy about is the length of the switch rails.  I normally build pointwork to a crossing angle of 10 or greater.  This one is only a 7 and the blades are just 80mm long.  I started with just one solder 'chair' at A, but felt that just one solder joint at A would mean all the stress of the blade flex would only be on one joint, so I soldered another at B.  This effectively reduced the flex length to 65mm and with the torque action of the blades on the tie bar joint (similar to a slip), it's suddenly become quite stiff.  I'm sure a Tortoise motor will cope with it with a stiff action rod, but I would like to reduce the switching force if possible.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

Are you using a solid soldered tie-bar fixing? That won't work for a switch-diamond because of the much steeper angle between the switch blades, compared with a turnout. In effect you have created a solid triangle, compared with a parallelogram for a turnout.

 

You need to arrange loose pins in the tie-bar for the switch rail fixing, so that they can rotate a fraction as the switch moves over. That is a better method generally for all switches, and removes stress from the tie-bar fixing. You should then be able easily have two fixings at A and B, and perhaps a third one.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

Yes I am.  Never been a problem before as the crossing angles and length of switch blades meant you could get away with it.  I came across this before with double slips as it was a similar effect.  

 

Thanks for the all the suggestions, guys.  

 

I've got golf the next two days, so will take a look at it on Friday.  I already have a couple of boxes of brass lace making pins, so will give them a try.

Edited December 5, 2017 by gordon s

[gordon s]

Thinking about using lace pins in a tie bar whilst I'm watching Chelsea. I understand the pin must be free to rotate in the tie bar and that's easy to do. Drill a hole in the tie bar and insert the pin from the back. Solder the blades to the pin. OK So far.....

....but what happens when the turnout is already glued down. You cannot slide the tie bar in under the rail as the pins are protruding. Surely if you just have the pins in from the top of the tie bar, there's nothing to stop it pulling out.

If you do mount he tie bar before gluing the turnout in position, what happens if it fails after a few months or so. You have the same problem in that you cannot slide the tie bar in place without lifting the whole turnout.

Am I missing something?

 

Edit:  OK had a sleep and thought about this.  If one were to fail in situ, them you could slide in a new ply sleeper under the switch blades from the side.  Drill a clearance hole for the pin diameter through the tie bar and down through the track bed.  Go under the board and enlarge the pin diameter hole from the back in the track bed to provide clearance for the pin head and the insert the pin back up through the board and through the tie bar.  Once it protrudes through the tie bar on the top surface, pull it through with a pair of long nose pliers and solder up again.  Trim off the excess and job done.  Might work.....

 

Of course rather than drill a quarter inch hole for the Tortoise motor, a much larger hole (15mm) in the board covered over with cork trackbed would allow access for pin replacement once the Tortoise motor was removed.

 

Edit 2:  OK had a few minutes before going off to golf, so found a piece of ply sleeper and some 0.7mm brass lace making pins.  Drilled it to provide clearance and soldered up the blades to the pins. There's no doubt that's halved the forces required, so that's a huge improvement.

 

My only concern now is that the brass pin/solder joint is on the inside of the switch blades and whilst I appreciate this is no different to a solder blob to a copper tie bar, the joint itself is much smaller, just between the pin and the blade.  Once you have filed down the pin/solder joint to provide clearance for the wheel flange, there appears to very little supporting the joint.  Would a small brass washer fitted between the underside of the blade and the ply tie bar help?  It would allow a larger joint area lower down the rail without fouling the flange.

 

Perhaps the dimensions and location of the wheel tread/flange on the rail means it's not an issue at all and my concerns are unwarranted.

Edited December 6, 2017 by gordon s

[Michael Edge]

Thanks for confirming one single solder joint isn't enough.  I thought that may be the case...

 

I already use 0.8mm piano wire for all my turnouts, so that's not an issue.  Interested in how you operate both switches with one motor as I've always used two.  I'm assuming it's some form of pivot linkage, but would certainly like to hear more about how this is accomplished.

 

No, two motors, they just fit without interfering with each other.

[Michael Edge]

In answer to Martin's comment above, all the Carlisle ones have the blades soldered solidly to the tiebars and none broken so far....

[gordon s]

No, two motors, they just fit without interfering with each other.

 

 

Sorry Michael, now I'm confused.  I always used two motors back to back, but it was your own post that said you used just one motor that prompted me to ask how the linkage is done.  Now you're saying you use two motors after all....?

 

Here's your post.

 

"If you have flexing switches they really need to be soldered to more than one sleeper, there are a lot of these switch diamonds on Carlisle and they were a problem at first with the Tortoise point motors. These just fit in the centre to operate both switches together but the blades were to stiff for the wire supplied with them, replacing the operating wires with .8mm piano wire fixed it though".

[gordon s]

In answer to Martin's comment above, all the Carlisle ones have the blades soldered solidly to the tiebars and none broken so far....

 

I haven't had any break either, but the switching force with short blades is quite high.  Using a pin on the blades which is free to swivel is a much better idea and hence my interest in understanding the process.  Having seen for myself how much better it is in terms of reducing the forces on the blades, it's clearly a better method and one I shall probably adopt once I fully understand how it is done.

[RedgateModels]

Hi Gordon,

 

hope you can see from this pic that I used normal dressmaking pins threaded up through the tie bars from the underneath, clipped off 2 to 3 mm (in O gauge) then bent the end over and soldered to the inside of the railhead.

 

 

You can also see how I repaired a broken tiebar to tiebar link (they were underneath) when one came adrift after fitting to the layout.

 

Sorry but you may have to bite the bullet and lift the point 🙁

Edited September 14, 2022 by RedgateModels

[gordon s]

That was my concern Ian.  I've laid about 20 turnouts so far and they're all fine, so I've no intention of lifting them.  This discussion came about re a new switched crossing and that started me thinking about the brass pins for all future turnout builds.  That won't be a problem at installation, but as always I try to look ahead and ask what you do if one fails and you have to replace it in situ.

 

From my edits this morning I can see how it could be done, but was certainly interested in what others have done.

 

The first thing I've picked up is bending the pin through a right angle.  That gives a much larger joint area and keeps the pin down below flange level, so that picture is invaluable.

 

Thanks!

 

Have you changed to 0 gauge now or is this something else you're working on ?

[RedgateModels]

I've been building Fourgig East, my O gauge layout for several years now Gordon

 

The only failures I have had have been on the double slip, which is very tight being a 1 in 5 - a lot of force with four very short switch blades, have been the soldered joints where the pins attach to the blades. I just clamp the blade to the stock rail and re-solder.

 

OK, my, in hindsight, too fancy arrangement joining the two tie bars together failed and I had to come up with an above ground solution, but hey that's what it's all about I guess The brass link wire is just pressed into the holes in the tie bar and has not dropped out yet ....

 

I'm also using only one TT300 slow acting motor per pair of blades. It just copes .....

[RedgateModels]

This is a good pic, shows the head of the pins in situ and the later to fail tie bar link!

 

 

It failed I think because I was relying on the flex in the wire to take up the stress on the soldered joints. Mistake, although the other one on the other two sets of blades has not gone (yet)

Edited September 14, 2022 by RedgateModels

[eldavo]

I've used the bent pin in the tiebar method on a lot of trackwork.  Never had a pin failure though I have had to resolder the joint between the switch blade and the pin on a number of occasions (especially in N gauge).  I wouldn't worry too much over pin failures.

 

Also in my experience it is usually, just about, possible to fit a new tiebar complete with pins into an already sited turnout. Might need a little groundwork excavation but it's possible though thankfully a rare occurrence in 4mm.  I had to do a replacement on Waton (N gauge) just before the doors opened at Warley.  Focuses the mind somewhat!

 

Cheers

Dave

[hayfield]

Gordon

 

A method I use on double slips which have equally short switch blades, is either one described by Norman Solomon or developed from one of his ideas,

 

It is making a hinged joint. I use cast metal fishplates where one end is soldered to the fixed rail, the switch rail is just slotted in, the blades are soldered to the tiebar which holds all in place

 

Another method is to use Peco N gauge plastic rail joiners as the hinge, looks not as good but very effective also isolates the blades form the common crosing 

[martin_wynne]

Am I missing something?

 

Hi Gordon,

 

There are dozens of tie-bar methods, so I don't know what you are missing without seeing what you are doing.

 

With the common sliding-sleeper tie-bar, it is usual to cut away a slot in the cork underlay below the tie-bar position. This avoids any binding if particles of ballast get under the tie-bar, and also leaves a clearance space for the head of a pin if used. It also means that it is possible later to slide in a replacement tie-bar with pins or other fixings, should it ever be needed. When all is working, any visible part of the slot is covered with tissue paper and a bit of ballast.

 

The usual pin method is to insert the pin from below, bend it over and crank it slightly to provide a short length of pin to be soldered along the web of the switch blade. Much easier to do if the tie-bar is not copper-clad. With the much reduced stress of this method, failure is very unlikely provided it is well tested before laying.

 

In the olden days (1970s) I manufactured tie-bars based on these methods as part of my Kit-Trak range. The tie-bar was unclad 1/32" fibreglass, 3mm wide. The 1mm dia. pins were turned from nickel-silver, having a thin head below the tie-bar and a small profiled groove to receive the foot of the switch blade for soldering. Anyone with a lathe (I saw one in the background of one of your pics ) would be able to replicate that method. I will try to find a pin drawing. It produced a reliable and unobtrusive fixing.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[St Enodoc]

Have a look here (and later posts) for how I operate double slips with flexible switches using a single motor at each end:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94350-mid-cornwall-lines-1950s-western-region-in-00/page-39&do=findComment&comment=2786496

[Michael Edge]

Sorry Michael, now I'm confused.  I always used two motors back to back, but it was your own post that said you used just one motor that prompted me to ask how the linkage is done.  Now you're saying you use two motors after all....?

 

Here's your post.

 

"If you have flexing switches they really need to be soldered to more than one sleeper, there are a lot of these switch diamonds on Carlisle and they were a problem at first with the Tortoise point motors. These just fit in the centre to operate both switches together but the blades were to stiff for the wire supplied with them, replacing the operating wires with .8mm piano wire fixed it though".

 

Sorry, that wasn't very clear, originally I thought I would have to use one motor and a rocker to operate the tiebars in opposition but then found that two motors (working simultaneously) would fit opposite each other. The movement was very stiff with this length of blade, soldered to two sleepers, I tried to get it to work with the original Tortoise wire but they weren't very reliable. Stiffer wire solved the problem and is now being extended to all facing points. This is a long job though as there at least 400 point motors on the layout. The problem was made worse on Carlisle because the motors are not left with power on when in the normal position. This allows them to be switched from more than one panel, fairly essential on a layout 100ft long.

[martin_wynne]

In the olden days (1970s) I manufactured tie-bars based on these methods as part of my Kit-Trak range. The tie-bar was unclad 1/32" fibreglass, 3mm wide. The 1mm dia. pins were turned from nickel-silver, having a thin head below the tie-bar and a small profiled groove to receive the foot of the switch blade for soldering. Anyone with a lathe (I saw one in the background of one of your pics ) would be able to replicate that method. I will try to find a pin drawing. It produced a reliable and unobtrusive fixing.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

I could find only a scruffy sketch from 1975, so here's a new sketch. It's a good few years since I made any of these pins. They are quite quick to do, the groove doesn't have to be too precise, it gets filled with solder:

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Hi Gordon,

 

In the olden days (1970s) I manufactured tie-bars based on these methods as part of my Kit-Trak range. The tie-bar was unclad 1/32" fibreglass, 3mm wide. The 1mm dia. pins were turned from nickel-silver, having a thin head below the tie-bar and a small profiled groove to receive the foot of the switch blade for soldering. Anyone with a lathe (I saw one in the background of one of your pics ) would be able to replicate that method. I will try to find a pin drawing. It produced a reliable and unobtrusive fixing.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Tucked away in one of my box of bits I have at least a pair of your tiebars (not slips unfortunately). Had no idea these tiebars were engineered as described, will look closer once I have unpacked everything

[martin_wynne]

Tucked away in one of my box of bits I have at least a pair of your tiebars (not slips unfortunately). Had no idea these tiebars were engineered as described, will look closer once I have unpacked everything

 

Hi John,

 

These were called "PF" type tie-bars (pivot-fixing). There was also the "SF" type (solid-fixing) having a fixed location rivet in a copper-clad bar. You may have either type.

 

regards,

 

Martin.