Stephen Freeman Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 You could do that but it isn't really necessary. What you might find desirable is to use copperclad for the slide chair timbers and solder rivets to them (of course you have to drill the copperclad for the rivets and have a source of supply of rivets -Scalefour/EMGS). The only real downside of using copperclad is matching it to the other timbers and hiding the insulation gap - not too difficult with slide chair timbering. You should be able to find some photos of this on my website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 Hello again, some excellent tips there, some things I never thought of. Sometimes I miss the obvious....I never actually thought of glueing the copperclad on top of the sleepers prior to starting construction. I have some strip from C and L of the right thickness specifically for that purpose. Out of interest, Would Templot templates be more accurate for OO sf? Previous posters on this thread said the gauges are more important than the templates. Regards, Lee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Gauges are much more important than templates, the templates merely help you do the initial design of the whole layout while you always build with the gauges after you have a datum rail flowing through formations based on the template. Templot I assume is able to setup templates to 00-SF where the track gauge is 16.2mm. You may find it'll slightly tweak point geometry to deal with the slight loss of gauge while retaining correct centreline spacings for example. Say you build a normal crossover between tracks from two points, if you put the vees in the place your 16.5mm gauge template tells you you may end up with the stock rails meeting oddly. It shouldn't be massive though compared to someone trying to use an 00 point template for P4 and vice versa. Try the copperclad on top of the sleeper but be careful about lingering with the iron and melting or sleeper or worse, inhaling superglue vapour. That was why I recommended replacing the sleeper. Btw if you use a longer piece of copperclad on top of the sleeper you could run it down the back of the sleeper into the ballast to solder your electical pickup to.. I hope you get past the initial frustrations with it and get to enjoy it as modelling should never feel like a chore,, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 Thanks Craig. I am actually chuffed I have completely finished a turnout, and made it so it runs. Not perfectly I might add, but what I have learnt so far, will hopefully allow me to achieve a better standard on the next one. I do get frustrated with the tricky bits, but always go back to it after a couple of days. All the best, Lee Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted June 23, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 23, 2011 Templot I assume is able to setup templates to 00-SF where the track gauge is 16.2mm. You may find it'll slightly tweak point geometry to deal with the slight loss of gauge while retaining correct centreline spacings for example. Hi Lee, Craig, Yes Templot correctly calculates the geometry according to the actual track gauge. A template for 16.2mm track gauge is slightly shorter than one for 16.5mm. This doesn't matter too much for a turnout because construction is done using the gauge tools and the length difference is easily accommodated. However, it matters a lot for a diamond-crossing and slips. If the two vees in a diamond-crossing are not exactly the right distance apart it is impossible to get the other rails to line up properly. If you try to build to 16.2mm track gauge on a diamond-crossing template intended for 16.5mm you will come to grief. A 16.5mm 1:8 diamond-crossing is about 5mm longer between the vees than one for 16.2mm. That might not seem much, but it's enough to throw the rails significantly out of alignment. However, the most important difference between a C&L template and a Templot template is that the C&L template is straight, whereas a Templot template can be easily curved to any radius you like. So creating templates to put say a 1:8 crossover into a 10ft radius curve is just a matter of a couple of clicks. Doing the same with C&L paper templates is tricky to say the least. This is the biggest single advantage of building your own track -- you can make the pointwork flow through the curves in a prototypical fashion and adjust the radii and angles exactly to fit your site. Building your own track on a small range of ready-printed straight templates loses that advantage. This doesn't only apply to steam-era bullhead track, here for example is a modern curved crossover on concrete bearers -- how would you build this on straight templates? http://bristol-rail....bbey_Wood92.jpg regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 HI Martin. Thanks for that. I guess Templot really gives you that full flexibility and a free hand with design. How much is a licence? Regards, Lee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted June 24, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 24, 2011 I guess Templot really gives you that full flexibility and a free hand with design. How much is a licence? Hi Lee, A standard Templot Licence is GBP 46.50 -- unchanged for over 10 years! Full details at: http://www.templot.c...plot_buynow.htm regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted June 26, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 26, 2011 I have always found templates restricting as I often have curves leading into pointwork so often the curve runs into the points. In the past I have laid out the trackwork on the baseboard and built it from the PW tables. However if you use Templot you can produce the templates for either the individual points to suit or better a whole chunk of pointwork on one template so it hangs together better. The point about diamonds and slips is correct you either have to control the approach angles and get the correct nose to nose crossing dimension to suit the gauge or you will end up making special crossing angles and working without a template. Templot should allow special crossing angles. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 All, hello. A small, but significant milestone was reached this evening...I actually ran some stock with no problems through my 1st completed point It's not perfect, but it has given me the confidence to know I can improve the next ones. I enclose some photographic proof. Regards Lee Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Top work, looks great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 Hi. Yet another question. I Araldited some copperclad strips to the top of the plastic sleepers in readiness to strengthen the v and wing rails up. As soon as I tried to solder said rails to the copperclad, they came unattached from the plastic sleepers. So, what would the best adhesive be to glue copperclad to the c and l plastic sleepers? And I should add the copperclad is double sided. Regards, Lee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Freeman Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Try Plastizap, if you dally with the soldering-iron it will come unstuck pretty much whatever glue you use but you can always glue it back down after it's cooled off if using Plastizap - look out for the fumes if you over-heat though (applies to any cyano)! Even using copperclad for the crossing timbers can have problems (too much heat and the copper will come away). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share Posted July 10, 2011 Hi Stephen, thanks for replying. Advice on this thread seems a bit thin on the ground after my initial postings. The whole point of the copperclad is to provide an anchor point when soldering the crossing up, it won't work for me if its not attached to the sleepers before starting construction. There is hardly any heat build up as the iron is only in place for a second or two. I think on the next one,I might try using a full copperclad sleeper or two in this area, and see if that is any better. Regards, Lee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Freeman Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Hi Stephen, thanks for replying. Advice on this thread seems a bit thin on the ground after my initial postings. The whole point of the copperclad is to provide an anchor point when soldering the crossing up, it won't work for me if its not attached to the sleepers before starting construction. There is hardly any heat build up as the iron is only in place for a second or two. I think on the next one,I might try using a full copperclad sleeper or two in this area, and see if that is any better. Regards, Lee. I always glue mine down first - I use Plastizap normally. I build up the vees using the method explained by Martin Wynne - details on the Templot Group I think, which means soldering one rail at a time, i.e. I build the vee up en situ. Don't be mean with the size of the copperclad pad, make it a bit bigger and it might not heat up as much so quickly. The excess can be removed (minidrill and disc/burrs) after you've completed the rest of the turnout and then add the cosmetic chairs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share Posted July 10, 2011 I just don't get this. I have just noticed that the rail height of the v, seems to be very slightly lower than the stock rails, the copperclad I have used, laid on top of the plastic sleepering, for strengthening the v area is sold specifically for this task. It's not much, but surely this will cause running problems? Also, if one replaces a plastic sleeper with a copperclad one, how then do you solder the rail to it, as the plastic chairs raise the rail quite a bit over the sleeper height? I thought I had all of this sussed, each time I try to move on a stage it just seems so incredibly difficult. I am thinking again that building this stuff to a reasonably running, robust standard, is just beyond my capabilities. At this rate, It's going to be bloody ages before I get any working track actually laid, and I want to progress and get on quicker. Regards, Lee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted July 11, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2011 I just don't get this. I have just noticed that the rail height of the v, seems to be very slightly lower than the stock rails, the copperclad I have used, laid on top of the plastic sleepering, for strengthening the v area is sold specifically for this task. Hi Lee, A moulded chair lifts the rail by around 0.6mm. The copperclad you mention (if it's the one sold by C&L) isn't 0.6mm thick - it's thinner (I haven't any to hand to measure, but it's 0.4 or 0.5mm IIRC). And yes, I know the website quotes 0.6mm..... Brian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 Hi Brian, your northern worst nightmare here I do remember reading in your literature that this particular copperclad is not quite the stated thickness. My question is, will the common crossing area, being a smidgeon below the height of the other rails, actually cause any running problems? Regards, Lee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Hi Brian, your northern worst nightmare here I do remember reading in your literature that this particular copperclad is not quite the stated thickness. My question is, will the common crossing area, being a smidgeon below the height of the other rails, actually cause any running problems? Regards, Lee. It could do as rigid chassis really aren't designed to twist as would be required. Most RTR is so sloppy though it wont notice. Get some card or paper under those sleepers on the build area to pack them for the build instead. You'll probably need to run a file over those chairs on the stock rails then though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted July 12, 2011 Author Share Posted July 12, 2011 Hi all. There have been a few mentions on here of some demonstrations of common crossing construction on the templot forum. I'm buggered if I can find it, anyone? Bit of a longshot...are there any North East resident trackbuilders on here, I am struggling a little bit with the common crossing area again, I think I need to watch an expert building one up to see where I am going wrong. I have read umpteen books and watched the Norman Solomon dvd, but I cant get sorted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted July 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 12, 2011 There have been a few mentions on here of some demonstrations of common crossing construction on the templot forum. I'm buggered if I can find it, anyone? Hi Lee, Is this what you are looking for: http://85a.co.uk/for...hp?post_id=8326 regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Harrap Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Hi Lee, Is this what you are looking for: http://85a.co.uk/for...hp?post_id=8326 regards, Martin. Have a look at EASY FROGS in Handbuilt Track thread(dont know how to make a link), regards, Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Taz Posted July 13, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 13, 2011 You mean like this Brian http://www.rmweb.co....post__p__439443 Certainly looks like an interesting way of doing it. I was going to ask you about it on Monday night but those shorts distracted me and I forgot all about it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 Thanks guys, some excellent methods from some very clever people. It's actually the relationship between the wing rails, vee, and check rails, as opposed to just the v. Basically the straight route through the point works well, lovely and smooth, but on the angled diverging route, the back of the wheel that runs over the vee is very slightly rubbing on the knuckle of the wing rail, not much, but enough to notice. Can't work out what I need to do to eradicate it. Any tips? I could try to post a basic photo with arrows pointing the problem out, but don't think I'm that clever. Regards, Lee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted July 13, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 13, 2011 on the angled diverging route, the back of the wheel that runs over the vee is very slightly rubbing on the knuckle of the wing rail, not much, but enough to notice. Can't work out what I need to do to eradicate it. Any tips? Hi Lee, There are 4 possible reasons: 1. The wheels back-to-back dimension is too small. If you are using 00-SF gauge tools, it shouldn't be less than 14.3mm. If you are using C&L gauge tools (DOGA-Fine), it shouldn't be less than 14.6mm. or 2. The check rail is too far from the crossing. If you are using 00-SF gauge tools, it should be 15.2mm to the working face of the check rail. If you are using C&L gauge tools (DOGA-Fine), it should be 15.5mm. The 00-SF check gauge tool is very accurate and if used correctly your check rails will be accurately positioned. What you must NOT do is use a spacer such as the 1.0mm thick crossing flangeway gauge, or a bit of copper-clad, or whatever, to set check rails from the adjacent running rail. This is a common beginner error. Check rails should always be set from the opposite running rail. or 3. The wing rail knuckle is badly aligned with the crossing vee. This is just a matter of practice to gain the necessary skills. Always eye along the rail edges to be sure they align correctly. or 4. The knuckle gap is too small. It should be a bit wider than the crossing flangeway gap, i.e. the gauge shim should be an easy loose fit in the knuckle with a bit of play. It is not necessary to make too sharp a bend in the wing rail at the knuckle -- on the prototype it is a short curve. Especially it is not necessary to file a nick in the rail to make a sharp knuckle bend -- another common beginner error which looks awful. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 Ah ha. Point number 4. When I put the gauge shim into the frog along the straight route, its a nice snug, comfortable fit. Not the case on the diverging route. We are only talking about a fraction too tight, but I guess that's enough. Still not sure how I correct it though, as everything is correctly gauged and seems correctly placed. It does actually still run ok, just not quite as well as the 'straight ahead route. Regards, Lee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.