Any Question Answered

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Yorkshire Square said:

made using Templot components. Looking at the O Gauge picture the chairs appear to be in two pieces.

 

That's an option in Templot. It avoids the fiddly process of sliding chairs onto rails, and makes it much easier to assemble complex track formations. But I suspect it is hardly suitable for 2mm scale unless you have a high-resolution printer.

 

Here is another picture of 0 gauge track.

 

 

The chairs on the middle raft are one-piece solid-jaw chairs which must be threaded onto the rail.

 

On the left are some 2-part chair bases. The rail can be dropped into them without needing to slide through them. The loose-jaw parts on the right are then inserted in the slots and clip the rail in place.

 

To repeat, solid-jaw or loose jaw is an option in Templot. Both types of chair plug into the timbering base and clip into place. No gauges or adhesive are needed.

 

Here is an introductory video about Templot plug track from James Walters:

 

 

 

 

 

Martin.

[tom s]

I will try and be clear in what I used from the program when I do the forum post about it! I feel like the problems I have had have been avoidable and overall it seems like the technology is there where this can be just another method of doing track. Better than the other methods in some ways and worse in others; easier in places and harder in others. Just to each modeller which they think is best for them.

Cheers, Tom.

[Izzy]

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

That's an option in Templot. It avoids the fiddly process of sliding chairs onto rails, and makes it much easier to assemble complex track formations. But I suspect it is hardly suitable for 2mm scale unless you have a high-resolution printer.

 

Here is another picture of 0 gauge track.

 

 

The chairs on the middle raft are one-piece solid-jaw chairs which must be threaded onto the rail.

 

On the left are some 2-part chair bases. The rail can be dropped into them without needing to slide through them. The loose-jaw parts on the right are then inserted in the slots and clip the rail in place.

 

To repeat, solid-jaw or loose jaw is an option in Templot. Both types of chair plug into the timbering base and clip into place. No gauges or adhesive are needed.

 

Here is an introductory video about Templot plug track from James Walters:

 

 

 

 

 

Martin.

 

Interestingly plug-in Easitrac chairs have been available for some years. I believe the intention was that it made constructing pointwork easier/quicker/simpler. I have never tried them. However the moulded bases that were produced have now dissapeared from shop 1 seemingly being replaced by FineTrax turnouts so I wonder if the system didn't prove to be all that it was hoped. My view, for what it's worth, is that anything that uses a fixed base into which items are plugged or slid needs to be extremely accurate because there is none of the adjustability available with separate parts. No matter what track I have built, nor the scale, 2mm/4mm/7mm I have always found the need to 'finesse' some of it at times.

 

Bob

 

 

[Yorkshire Square]

Bob, the predrilled bases were, as you say, made obsolete by the availability of Finetrax. The plastic chairs and sleeper strip are continued so that members can use them to construct Easitrac-like turnouts in non-standard formats.

 

I know a few members who use them. Personally I find them rather like the modelling equivalent of self-flagelation...

[Donw]

I was one of those who tried out the plug in chairs they seemed good to me. I found the fixing of the tie bar a little awkward but more practice would have helped ( I didn't have the parts for more). 

I have also use the chairs and the plastic strip to make turnouts. I found the once I removed the chairs from the sprue I simply could not manipulate them in my fingers to thread them on the rail. I found the only way I could do it was to thread the rail through the chair whilst still on the sprue then cut the chair free and thread it through the next one continuing until I had all the chairs I needed including checkrail chairs where required on the piece of rail. I would then thread a piece of easitrac onto each end  this would hold the rail up whilst I slid chairs into place and applied solvent it also helped get the first stock rail aligned on the timbers.

 

Now you buy the printed turnout kits and I believe it is much quicker but more expensive your choice really. I may try some of the etched chairs onto thin ply sleepers next time I do any.

All these methods can produce good track including soldering to PCB sleepers it is really finding a method that suits you.

 

I did find the plug in chairs stronger and easier to handle with the bit underneath so I would imagine that Martins Templot chairs would also be easier to fit to the base.  I would probably opt for one piece chairs.  If I had the printers I would build a 2mm turnout and write it up for the Magazine because there could be a real benefit as it would free you from the standard turnout look you get from templates.

 

Don

 

[ShadowinLinby]

I totted up the cost of the components to make this crossover and it came out at around £10, relatively cheap I'd say when compared with the cost of buying a 3D printer! 

 

ChrisB

[tom s]

35 minutes ago, Donw said:

If I had the printers I would build a 2mm turnout and write it up for the Magazine because there could be a real benefit as it would free you from the standard turnout look you get from templates.

Indeed, I had to make the code 40 track fit into the same area as the code 55 pointwork and Templot allowed me to really bring the templates close and maximise the radii. It would have been nice to improve the A 5.5 one but there is a joist that needs to be cleared by the under board point rodding!


Total cost is looking at £15 for the rail, around £3.50 for the resin according to my slicer, (not counting the same amount in failures.) I also printed my own blade and vee planing jig, but it is less efficient than the proper ones.

** correction, #5 is also an A blade.

Edited May 17 by tom s

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, ShadowinLinby said:

I totted up the cost of the components to make this crossover and it came out at around £10, relatively cheap I'd say when compared with the cost of buying a 3D printer! 

 

ChrisB

 

But after making the crossover you still have the 3D printer. Ready to make another one or dozens of other modelling jobs. 🙂

 

Martin.

[Sithlord75]

I've had a go at the 3DP turnout using Templot and, given I've had almost 10 years' experience using 3D printers (both FED and Resin) I haven't been convinced that the method of Templot works that well for 2mm - although I've seen plenty of examples of it working fine for the larger ones.  

 

The biggest issue I had was the "web" which keeps everything spaced is, compared with the sleepers, quite thick.  I appreciate that in a larger scale, this thickness, which seems to be standard, becomes relatively smaller.  I was able to print the chairs and sleepers all as one part, and with one which was slightly larger than my Phrozon 8K Mini S build plate, the alignment of the parts was spot on.  I haven't tried a variety of resins - I know that resins aren't all the same and I've found one which works for the rest of my modelling (wagon bodies mostly!) but it didn't seem to work as well for track base.

 

I'm not up enough of program writing but I'd think a) it would be possible to allow for thicker sleepers for 2mm track in Templot but b) would it be worth writing the code for the number of people likely to be using it?  (I also appreciate it may already be a thing but as a CAD user, Templot does my head in - and I know Templot isn't a CAD program!!!)

 

I'm still willing to experiment but currently I'm more persuaded by @ShadowinLinby and his argument for the parts from the shop.

 

Incidentally, we have had more than a few problems with the Finetrax stuff from Shop 1 Down Under. @Winchat has reported issues in South Australia and I've had a few here in Queensland.  I imagine it's to do with the excessive amounts of UV we have here compared to, for example Yorkshire!!

 

[Izzy]

9 hours ago, Yorkshire Square said:

Bob, the predrilled bases were, as you say, made obsolete by the availability of Finetrax. The plastic chairs and sleeper strip are continued so that members can use them to construct Easitrac-like turnouts in non-standard formats.

 

I know a few members who use them. Personally I find them rather like the modelling equivalent of self-flagelation...

Thanks Tony, I’m pleased to hear the individual chairs will continue to be available. In actual fact, for me, having now finally finding the key to using the chairs on ply sleepers - see my Exchange sidings thread - while I would agree it takes a particular methodology to load the chairs onto the rail, the overall experience I had was that it was far easier and quicker than building track using etched chairplates. And of course the ply doesn’t warp/distort like plastic can and does, the main reason I soon abandoned any notion of using the chairs on plastic sleepers. The only point I built this way soon resembled a rollercoaster both length and width ways. 
 

But I suppose we all have differing priorities. I don’t know CAD, haven’t the space or desire to have a 3D printer with all the noxious side effects they produce, so look for the easiest route with those options out of the picture. Like I would guess many others I’m just very grateful the 2mm association can supply what I need through the efforts of others. 

 

Bob

 

[Donw]

I do rather like the use of the chairs onto thin ply sleepers

 

 

This is the only picture I have to hand. The ones on here have been lost and after replacing the laptop twice some pictures may be on a old machine with a dodgy screen.

 

The crossing are on scraps of etch fixed down with araldite. I found you can adjust them or solder rail to scraps stuck down. The araldite will soften but hardens again as it cools. This is the way I was thinking of using the etched chairs you could mix the etched chairs with the moulded ones. Using the etched ones at key positions.

 

Don

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Sithlord75 said:

I've had a go at the 3DP turnout using Templot and, given I've had almost 10 years' experience using 3D printers (both FED and Resin) I haven't been convinced that the method of Templot works that well for 2mm - although I've seen plenty of examples of it working fine for the larger ones.  

 

The biggest issue I had was the "web" which keeps everything spaced is, compared with the sleepers, quite thick.
 

 

@Sithlord75

 

Hi,

 

I don't know how many times over the years I've tried to explain that Templot is a workshop tool -- if a setting isn't what you want you click the buttons and change it.

 

If the web dimensions are not what you want, you can change them to whatever you do want:

 

 

 

 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[njee20]

Yes I can’t fault the versatility of Templot in being able to adjust all of the parameters. You do end up with very thin ‘webs’ if you want to match to something like Easitrac, but it’s totally doable, and of course thinner parts are also more flexible. I found that the default settings added a ‘step’ betwixt web and timber too, I forget which setting it was, but I removed it for printing in the smaller scale. I didn’t print it flat on the bed for various reasons, and I would do the same again. 
 

I’ve also built a few of the Finetrax FB turnouts, which use the same ‘pegged chair’ construction as the older Easitrac ones. It’s pretty laborious. An FV15 has 200 ‘chairs’ to fit. They’re a nice halfway house between ready-to-lay track, but I think the lack of flexibility, given the effort involved, means they’re not materially easier than just building on PCB. With FB track I’m less concerned by the aesthetic of the clips anyway, as they’re so small to scale. But I wholly respect anyone who is more exacting than me!

[Sithlord75]

Thanks @martin_wynne - As I said, I assumed there'd be a way, I just hadn't invested the time in finding it!  Only recently started to play with the possibilities.  Thanks for pointing out how to do it.

[Velocemitch]

Totally different topic to track work and apologies if it’s in the wrong place, but DCC….

I’m coming back in to modelling after a long break, back when I built up my 2mm and N Gauge stock, DCC was confined to the larger scales, I think Zero one had just come out!

so looking now at the bewildering options, what is the best way to go with control systems, who does the smallest decoders? how does stay alive work? How do you graft these into converted Farish ( old Farish that is) locos or split frame scratch built chassis.

where the hell do you start, or do you not bother and stick with DC?

I’m tempted to change more for the possibilities of better running, than sound etc, particularly on the 2mm stuff. I gather the higher current and the stay alive chips help the ( always problematic) pick up issues.

I plan to build a hybrid layout with some areas 2mm, some finetrax N gauge, though currently I only have one suitable N gauge loco ( and about 8, 2mm ones).

[MarshLane]

58 minutes ago, Velocemitch said:

Totally different topic to track work and apologies if it’s in the wrong place, but DCC….

I’m coming back in to modelling after a long break, back when I built up my 2mm and N Gauge stock, DCC was confined to the larger scales, I think Zero one had just come out!

so looking now at the bewildering options, what is the best way to go with control systems, who does the smallest decoders? how does stay alive work? How do you graft these into converted Farish ( old Farish that is) locos or split frame scratch built chassis.

where the hell do you start, or do you not bother and stick with DC?

I’m tempted to change more for the possibilities of better running, than sound etc, particularly on the 2mm stuff. I gather the higher current and the stay alive chips help the ( always problematic) pick up issues.

I plan to build a hybrid layout with some areas 2mm, some finetrax N gauge, though currently I only have one suitable N gauge loco ( and about 8, 2mm ones).

 

PM Sent :)

Rich

[Donw]

The first thing to decide about DCC is how do you want to operate options can include;

 

Plug in or cordless handsets, or mobile phones

 

Driving locos only, include signals and turnouts, include switching lights in buildings etc too.

 

Having  some degree of automation

 

Touch screen mimic panels

 

I currently have two systems which are very competitive on price.

DCCEX with a 5A output and wifi access

MERG which integrates with the MERG CBUS LCB

 

Don

 

 

[Izzy]

7 hours ago, Velocemitch said:

where the hell do you start, or do you not bother and stick with DC?

 

If you find your happy with DC for what you want to do then stick with it. If you do decide DCC is what you want to try then yes, the options available can be a bit overwhelming. It can also be quite costly, even to get the basics, and especially with 2mm given the size involved. Quite apart from the command station aspect you need to budget around £30-40 per loco for a decoder. Yes, you can get cheaper, perhaps, but from my experience if you use anything other than Zimo, (and you'll need to anyway for some small locos because few other makes have decoders small enough), then the poor motor control will wish you'd stuck with DC, or got Zimo.

 

I am pleased I choose DCC and stuck with it through times I wished I hadn't. But it has cost me a considerable amount in time and effort let alone money to get to a place I am now happy with it. Currently this is using a Roco Z21 plus cheap android phone as the wi-fi  throttle. The vast majority of decoders, across three scales, 7/4/2mm, are Zimo & the now defunct CT. And this is just purely for motor control. I hate to consider what I could have spent had I gone down the route of DCC point & signal control let alone automation. So be sure you want/can afford the cost even before you make any other choice, so you don't regret it.

 

Bob

Edited May 20 by Izzy

[Yorkshire Square]

2 hours ago, Donw said:

MERG which integrates with the MERG CBUS LCB

 

This is why I have to avoid the MERG stand at shows.

 

"What does this board here do?"

 

"Well, it's a CBUS LCB."

 

Excellent! 🤣🤣🤣

[Nigelcliffe]

9 hours ago, Velocemitch said:

Totally different topic to track work and apologies if it’s in the wrong place, but DCC….

I’m coming back in to modelling after a long break, back when I built up my 2mm and N Gauge stock, DCC was confined to the larger scales, I think Zero one had just come out!

so looking now at the bewildering options, what is the best way to go with control systems, who does the smallest decoders? how does stay alive work? How do you graft these into converted Farish ( old Farish that is) locos or split frame scratch built chassis.

where the hell do you start, or do you not bother and stick with DC?

I’m tempted to change more for the possibilities of better running, than sound etc, particularly on the 2mm stuff. I gather the higher current and the stay alive chips help the ( always problematic) pick up issues.

I plan to build a hybrid layout with some areas 2mm, some finetrax N gauge, though currently I only have one suitable N gauge loco ( and about 8, 2mm ones).

 

Smallest (good) decoders, some combination of Zimo, ESU and Train-o-matic.   There are others who claim to be good and claim to be small, and they're neither in my experience (which is quite thorough).  

 

Fitting to old Farish designs, of the three or five-pole motor on a big metal chassis design.  Used to be "not difficult" with a device called a "digihat", which is an insulated bush, and thus separates the brush gear (typically lower brush on steam locos) from the track pickups.  The "digihat" may be becoming harder to find now, as most folk who wanted to convert those old locos will have done so.  They're very easy to make if you have a lathe (and really hard to make if you don't have one!).     Alternative is to remotor the loco, where "Tramfabriek" offer a number of motor kits as replacements, which will solve the pickup-connected to brush problem.   (But your costs are now approaching £60 per loco, with motor kit and DCC decoder, which is getting a bit silly priced for those old locos).  

Control system choice:  two questions really come to mind here -  what's your end ambitions, and what's the budget ?   

Stay-alive units are transformative in running qualities.   The higher track voltage doesn't make that much difference if you clean your track regularly.  

 

 

 

 

[Donw]

I didn't want to go into a lot of detail LCB is the anacronym used for Layout Control Bus the idea being that the bus controlling  turnouts, signal etc. is separate from the DCC bus providing loco control. It seems a particular concern of people that make a habit of driving locos into turnouts set against them. With DCC this can cause a shut down and if the DCC also controls the turnout you cannot reverse it and have to physical move the loco. The issue can be avoided by using frog juicers.

There is a more pertinent reason for using an LCB. DCC does not provide a means of sending back information. Railcom does offer some facilities but is not supported by all DCC systems. Feedback can be useful where you wish to have sensors for block detection which can be used for signalling systems or for more advanced operation.

 

Unless you opt for mechanical operation, using some form of Bus to operate turnouts and signals reduces the amount of wiring needed. This can also reduce the number of cross baseboard connections useful on portable layouts. Of course you may enjoy wiring, as a former telephone engineer it holds no fears for me but I do think these methods are better.

 

As for costs there are various ways to save money. For the portable layout I am building I can use one small processor board  with a breakout board for less than £10 to act as an accessory driver that will control servos. There  is easy to adapt code available ask me if you are interested.

 

Don

 

Edited May 20 by Donw

[Velocemitch]

Thanks all.

the cost is a significant factor, in effect I can do DC for nothing, where as DCC looks like it’s getting on for a four figure sum! ( that buys a lot of other toys!)

im not concerned about wiring, it is what it is, if you do it methodically it’s not hard. I doubt I would bother using DCC for points and signals, so it really comes down to the better running quality of the locos.

it’s a big chunk of money just to get that though……..

most new rolling stock I buy will be on the N gauge side, so I could just convert the N gauge and leave the finescale DC ( they would be physically separate on the layout anyway), but it’s the better running I really want on the finescale, so im defeating the object to a certain extent.

tricky……

 

[Donw]

43 minutes ago, Velocemitch said:

Thanks all.

the cost is a significant factor, in effect I can do DC for nothing, where as DCC looks like it’s getting on for a four figure sum! ( that buys a lot of other toys!)

im not concerned about wiring, it is what it is, if you do it methodically it’s not hard. I doubt I would bother using DCC for points and signals, so it really comes down to the better running quality of the locos.

it’s a big chunk of money just to get that though……..

most new rolling stock I buy will be on the N gauge side, so I could just convert the N gauge and leave the finescale DC ( they would be physically separate on the layout anyway), but it’s the better running I really want on the finescale, so im defeating the object to a certain extent.

tricky……

 

 

How many locos are you talking about? With 0 gauge sound decoders I could easily get into 4 figures but  if  small zimo decoders at around £40  and using DCCEX  with a phone you could have the system plus 10 locos for £500. For me it is not the issue of wiring but the freedom of not having to bother with electric circuits when operating and the only concern about other locos is whether they will get in each others way.

 

 

Don 

[Velocemitch]

9 hours ago, Donw said:

 

How many locos are you talking about? With 0 gauge sound decoders I could easily get into 4 figures but  if  small zimo decoders at around £40  and using DCCEX  with a phone you could have the system plus 10 locos for £500. For me it is not the issue of wiring but the freedom of not having to bother with electric circuits when operating and the only concern about other locos is whether they will get in each others way.

 

 

Don 

Probably about ten loco’s if I do them all. That’s £400, is the DCCEX system so cheap? I was looking at Digitrax for instance and a starter system was a lot more.

I will investigate DCCEX then, I could cope with that by the sound of it.

cost of the decoders would be spread over a few years anyway. 

[Velocemitch]

So DCC EX, does sound interesting, but it’s a bit like jumping in at very deep end, for someone who’s only experience of building electronics is a ‘transistorised’ controller ( remember them?) back in the 1970’s! ( it didn’t work!)
 

It could go one of two ways, either it works perfectly and does everything I want, or is just a pile of bits that won’t talk to each other because I have jumper #3 set to 1 instead of 0!