Hayfields turnout workbench

[hayfield]

Martin

 

This sounds fantastic, the one thing to remember is that some of the chairs are designed for P4 timber spacing, simple things like the switch and most of the common crossing chairs will fit without any issuesn as will standard, L1 & M1 chairs. The fudge will come when using crossings and slips in differing gauges owing to a variation in timber spacings from the P4  Exactoscale plans 

 

However with a little ingenuity many of the chair parts can be used for other applications (gauge or different angles), I have done this on a 3 way using the remnants from used sprues, a bit like a mosaic puzzle

 

Would love to have a go at using a non standard base, the pips though may be more of a hindrance !!  

[martin_wynne]

28 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Would love to have a go at using a non standard base, the pips though may be more of a hindrance !!  

 

Hi John,

 

I don't quite follow that? Without the pips isn't it just the same as sticking plastic timbers on a printed template? Without the hassle and cost of 3D printing?

 

 

Quote

chairs are designed for P4 timber spacing, simple things like the switch and most of the common crossing chairs will fit without any issues as will standard, L1 & M1 chairs. The fudge will come when using crossings and slips in differing gauges owing to a variation in timber spacings from the P4  Exactoscale plans 

 

You have lost me there. On Templot templates the timber spacings for the switch and crossing sections are the same for 00, EM and P4. Only the timber spacing between the switch and the crossing, where ordinary S1 chairs go, varies according to the gauge. I know C&L templates aren't like that.

 

There are some differences for K-crossings, but it is all down to the user (like everything else in Templot). You can set 00 templates to use P4 spacings if you wish.

 

But what does change of course is the flangeway gap, so some modification of the P4 chairs will be needed for that.

 

One issue not yet resolved is what adhesive to use to stick ABS chairs to 3D printed timbers in PLA polymer, or maybe in resin? Acetone is rumoured to work on PLA, but I'm not sure, it may need cyano. The bases could be printed in ABS for those willing to use ABS on their printer and don't mind the fumes.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited August 6, 2019 by martin_wynne

[hayfield]

8 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi John,

 

I don't quite follow that? Without the pips isn't it just the same as sticking plastic timbers on a printed template? Without the hassle and cost of 3D printing?

 

The timber positions will vary slightly depending whether its in 00/EM or P4 gauges, when using a P4 base I had to shave off the pips when I built to EM gauge, I guess you could program the pips accordingly for standard type chairs, see below for the special chairs

 

You have lost me there. On Templot templates the timber spacings for the switch and crossing sections are the same for 00, EM and P4. Only the timber spacing between the switch and the crossing, where ordinary S1 chairs go, varies according to the gauge. I know C&L templates aren't like that.

I have just made 3 B6 templates, a P4 template has 1 more timber than an EM gauge turnout and 3 more timbers than the 00 gauge template, most standard and M1/L1 chairs will be fine, its the block chairs parts which may be an issue, as the timbers will be in s slightly different position. Could affect the 3 & 4 PL positions on switches Y, C & D positions on common crossings, as for diamonds and slips some parts may have to be trimmed, the minefield is the obtuse crossing and some slip chairs

 

There are some differences for K-crossings, but it is all down to the user (like everything else in Templot). You can set 00 templates to use P4 spacings if you wish.

If the timbers on an EM unit are set to P4 positions it may work

But what does change of course is the flangeway gap, so some modification of the P4 chairs will be needed for that.

None of the Exactoscale Common crossing chairs fit in the wing rail gaps, the work around for check rail chairs requiring slightly larger gaps are common knowledge 

8 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

One issue not yet resolved is what adhesive to use to stick ABS chairs to 3D printed timbers in PLA polymer, or maybe in resin? Acetone is rumoured to work on PLA, but I'm not sure, it may need cyano. The bases could be printed in ABS for those willing to use ABS on their printer and don't mind the fumes.

I have used superglue (industrial strength) when fitting Modelu 3D printed 2 bolt slide chairs

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

When using the Exactoscale "special chairs" not in the P4 positions they were designed to be used in, you are in to a form of customerising. Its a bit difficult to explain, on turnouts you can adjust things slightly to use them, with the crossings and slips you have to alter some of the chairs some of which are in 3/4/5 parts. I will see if I can show this later in the build 

[Brassey]

If one is going to the trouble of making your own turnouts, then prototype practice is the best guide, and the timber spacing of which remains the same irrespective of gauge; EM, P4 or otherwise.  I built mine, to the best of my ability, to 1909 LNWR Permanent Way specs with the help of Templot.  Contemporary GWR spacings would no doubt have been different.  IIRC S4 Society templates are based on LNER standards.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Brassey said:

If one is going to the trouble of making your own turnouts, then prototype practice is the best guide, and the timber spacing of which remains the same irrespective of gauge; EM, P4 or otherwise.  I built mine, to the best of my ability, to 1909 LNWR Permanent Way specs with the help of Templot.  Contemporary GWR spacings would no doubt have been different.  IIRC S4 Society templates are based on LNER standards.

Now I'm confused too! The distance from toe to vee is different in different gauges, so surely the timber spacing will have to be adjusted to suit? This is particularly the case with slips and diamonds, where the distance between the two vees is significantly different in 00 and P4.

[martin_wynne]

27 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Now I'm confused too! The distance from toe to vee is different in different gauges, so surely the timber spacing will have to be adjusted to suit? This is particularly the case with slips and diamonds, where the distance between the two vees is significantly different in 00 and P4.

 

Hi,

 

Here's a diagram:

 

 

The timber spacing in sections 1, 3 and 4 is determined by the special chairs, and is the same regardless of the track gauge.

 

The length of section 2 varies with the track gauge, and this is where the number of timbers and their spacing varies. This section uses ordinary chairs, not the special ones, so they will fit anywhere.

 

The important point to note is that the timber spacing on the prototype is not constant -- it can be different in all 4 sections, according to the switch and crossing sizes. The timbers are also closed up where there are rail joints.

 

Evenly spaced timbers throughout, as often found on model pointwork such as Peco, is not prototypical, at least for traditional bullhead track.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

You can either adjust the spacing or the number of timbers , or both, depending on your personal preference in how to compromise. Going from P4 to 00 then you can omit 1 timber in every 8 to keep the spacing, or keep the 8 and put them closer together, then the ratio of timber to space looks wrong, so maybe you reduce the width of the timbers from 4 to 3.5 mm to get the ratio looking right, then the rails look a bit big so you change from code 82 to code 75 (for FB, no such option in BH), now all looks good but you now have H0 track. Everyone's take on it differs.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Grovenor

[martin_wynne]

1 minute ago, Grovenor said:

You can either adjust the spacing or the number of timbers , or both, depending on your personal preference in how to compromise. Going from P4 to 00 then you can omit 1 timber in every 8 to keep the spacing, or keep the 8 and put them closer together, then the ratio of timber to space looks wrong, so maybe you reduce the width of the timbers from 4 to 3.5 mm to get the ratio looking right, then the rails look a bit big so you change from code 82 to code 75, now all looks good but you now have H0 track. Everyone's take on it differs.

 

Hi Keith,

 

This is only an issue if you claim that 00 gauge track is a model of 4ft-8.5in gauge track.

 

Which doesn't make sense, bearing in mind that 00 gauge models are made to 4mm/ft scale for 4ft-1.5in gauge.

 

If you build 00 gauge track to suit them, i.e. a 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in track, everything works out fine, and the 16.5mm gauge is spot-on.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

9 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Hi Keith,

This is only an issue if you claim that 00 gauge track is a model of 4ft-8.5in gauge track.

cheers,

Martin.

I don't ! So its not an issue for me.

Rgds

[sharris]

10 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

If you build 00 gauge track to suit them, i.e. a 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in track, everything works out fine, and the 16.5mm gauge is spot-on.

 

If only Hornby et al. made models of the Padarn Railway*. 

 

*other 4' gauge railways are also available.

[hayfield]

22 hours ago, Brassey said:

If one is going to the trouble of making your own turnouts, then prototype practice is the best guide, and the timber spacing of which remains the same irrespective of gauge; EM, P4 or otherwise.  I built mine, to the best of my ability, to 1909 LNWR Permanent Way specs with the help of Templot.  Contemporary GWR spacings would no doubt have been different.  IIRC S4 Society templates are based on LNER standards.

 

 

Hate to be argumentative, but make a turnout in Templot in each of the gauges (00/EM/P4) all 3 differ in length and number of timbers

 

Secondly, print out a crossing or a silp in EM and P4 then overlay them, both different sizes. I think the mathematics which dictates this is a combination of the crossing angle and wing rail gap

[hayfield]

18 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

Here's a diagram:

 

 

The timber spacing in sections 1, 3 and 4 is determined by the special chairs, and is the same regardless of the track gauge.

 

The length of section 2 varies with the track gauge, and this is where the number of timbers and their spacing varies. This section uses ordinary chairs, not the special ones, so they will fit anywhere.

 

The important point to note is that the timber spacing on the prototype is not constant -- it can be different in all 4 sections, according to the switch and crossing sizes. The timbers are also closed up where there are rail joints.

 

Evenly spaced timbers throughout, as often found on model pointwork such as Peco, is not prototypical, at least for traditional bullhead track.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

Agree with this but the Exactoscale special chairs are designed for P4, certainly no issues with section one, have had issues in sections 3&4 with the centre parts of the block chairs (Y, X, C & D)

 

I think slips and diamonds are a potential issues, especially as slips are only in 1-7 & 1-8 sizes

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

Agree with this but the Exactoscale special chairs are designed for P4, certainly no issues with section one, have had issues in sections 3&4 with the centre parts of the block chairs (Y, X, C & D)

 

Hi John,

 

If using Templot templates you shouldn't have any trouble.

 

Here is a Templot screenshot showing an 00-SF B-7 turnout superimposed on a P4 B-7 turnout at the V-crossings.

 

00-SF timbers brown, rails light blue. P4 timbers dark blue, rails green:

 

 

You can see that for sections 3 & 4 of my diagram, the T9 and X1 to X9 timber spacings are identical. And the rails differ only for the wing rail flangeways on the A and B timbers. The P4 special chairs should all fit fine for 00-SF, apart from modifying the A and B chairs for the wider flangeway and maybe the X knuckle chair a fraction.

 

Only when you get back to the T8 timber in section 2 do the spacing differences begin to show. T9-X1 is close-spaced for the wing-rail joint, and the same for both 00 and P4.

 

A smaller version for mobiles:

 

 

The above info is for Templot templates on the default settings. I know C&L 00 templates are different, perhaps if you had problems you were using one of those?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited August 7, 2019 by martin_wynne

[hayfield]

16 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi John,

 

If using Templot templates you shouldn't have any trouble.

 

Here is a Templot screenshot showing an 00-SF B-7 turnout superimposed on a P4 B-7 turnout at the V-crossings.

 

00-SF timbers brown, rails light blue. P4 timbers dark blue, rails green:

 

 

You can see that for sections 3 & 4 of my diagram, the T9 and X1 to X9 timber spacings are identical. And the rails differ only for the wing rail flangeways on the A and B timbers. The P4 special chairs should all fit fine for 00-SF, apart from modifying the A and B chairs for the wider flangeway and maybe the X knuckle chair a fraction.

 

Only when you get back to the T8 timber in section 2 do the spacing differences begin to show. T9-X1 is close-spaced for the wing-rail joint, and the same for both 00 and P4.

 

A smaller version for mobiles:

 

 

The above info is for Templot templates on the default settings. I know C&L 00 templates are different, perhaps if you had problems you were using one of those?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Martin

 

Thanks again, would this be the same for diamonds and slips at the common crossings, I am assuming the obtuse and slip crossings will differ slightly depending on the gauge used ?

 

Would the timber positions be different on the Plans which originated from the P4 track company ? as these may differ from the C&L plans ?

[hayfield]

 

A few days have passed, social and work commitments getting in the way, Ply timbers in place and the copperclad strips being prepared to assemble the crossing

 

 

the central copperclad strip is one piece which has been gapped, the other 4 are just strips, the crossing being assembled

 

 

The crossing rails in place with the check rails, then tested. I have also started to fit the Exactoscale slip chairs, though the quality of the online chair identification page is a bit faint in places 

 

The central slip rails will be next,

 

 

This 3 way turned up in the post as I have been asked to look at it and repair it if possible. I do admire those who build with the ply and rivet method, but certainly not my favorite method. Its been very well made and equally carefully taken up from a layout, there are a few sleepers missing and some which have come unsoldered, but the crossings and slips are all unharmed. I have the tools and parts required to do this, the main challenge will be the tiebars.

 

Tiebars are the bain of my life, my preferred method being either the replacement timber and chair method, or standard copperclad method, the builder used copperclad strip on end with wire attachments from the points to it. Trying to think of an easy replacement

[hayfield]

 

Carried on adding the slip chairs along with making and fitting the first central slip road, have given it a quick test, all seems to be fine

[hayfield]

Past few days have been a bit hectic full of distractions

 

 

I rebuilt the 2 internal slip roads to a hinge style, as non hinge was too stiff, usual practice of using Exactoscale brass fishplates soldered to the central rail only. Once tested a few more chairs were fitted

 

 

Slip moved off the building board, the 3 wooden timbers removed and the PCB strips cut back to the rail sides

 

 

The remaining plastic timbers were fitted along with the remaining chairs, now waiting for final testing

[hayfield]

What a hectic week, lovely weather this weekend but so tiring. However I built the double slip a couple of weeks ago, but I kept finding the odd intermittent fault, so annoying as soon as I thought I had found it another cropped up. I should have stopped and thought it through, but I decided to stop wasting time and build another. I was also building a couple of plain A6 turnouts and the same thing started to happen, I thought the common factor was the loco and it was, the front set of drivers were loose enough to widen on the axles (should have suspected this when it was intermittent faults not fault with the slip

 

 

Still no real harm done, a substitute P4 loco was found and the new slip was finished to the first major testing stage, next up is to fit tiebars for the thorough test prior to finishing off the centre part of the crossing

 

 

 I will trim back the metal strips to the side of the rails so I can fit the plastic timbers and chairs to replace the centre 3 ply ones, then a few bonding wires  to be soldered between the switch rails and stock and closure rails, And for the eagled eyed of you the slide chairs either side of the tiebars (they tend to melt when the switch rails are soldered to the tiebars)  

[hayfield]

Also whilst building the second slip I was asked to repair a P4 3 way ply and rivet constructed turnout

 

 

This is the main area of damage, 3 timbers required plus tiebars

 

 

Also 3 sleepers needed plus about a dozen other soldered joints had come adrift

 

 

I had both spare timber strip, pre punched sleepers and brass rivets

 

 

I managed to obtain a timber punch, which can either punch 2 holes at the correct distance or punch a single hole. I also close the rivets using this punch

 

 

First job was to solder the 3 timbers in place, cut Exactoscale slide chairs in half and fit with superglue, then fit C&L wire tiebars

 

 

The final job was to stain the timbers

 

I must admit to actually enjoy doing this, I overheated the first two timbers burning them, which I anticipated so had spares to hand. You never know I might even make one for fun if I ever get any time to myself.

 

Still a successful repair, as it happens the turnout had been very well built and amazingly extremely carefully removed from an old layout with minor damage

 

On the other hand it would have been easy to repair this turnout with either ply timbers and plastic chairs or copperclad strip and brass chairs

 

 

 

 

[hayfield]

The double slip is nearing completion, just final testing required

 

 

I have shown the first photo in an earlier post but using it as a quick reference showing that the temporary ply timbers have been removed, the copperclad strip has been cut back to the rail sides and new plasyic timbers added

 

 

Two views of the completed central section showing the chairs which have been added, the second showing the cast fishplates soldered to one rail only acting as a hinge  to ease the tension on the tiebars

 

                                                                                      

 

Overhaul vies of the completed crossing

[St Enodoc]

How did you fix the blades to the tiebars and restrain them longitudinally John?

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

How did you fix the blades to the tiebars and restrain them longitudinally John?

 

I think it was Norman Solomon who showed me this method, its soldering them to the tie bar that stops movement, in this case the tiebar is for testing purposes only, which ever method you use (under baseboard etc) will restrain them. Something like the latest C&L product where wires come up through holes in the baseboard and soldered to the switch blades.  The problems with the switch blades is due to their length they lose their flexibility, then get even stiffer when there are 4 blades rather than 2.

 

The main issue is electrical continuity, I have taken off the electrical bonding between the switch rails and the stock/closuresuer rails as these stiffen up the blades too much, plan B is to have dropper wires going under the board or that very fine wire used for loco motors would be fine, you still need a bonding wire between the stock rails and the obtuse crossings

 

Here are a selection of methods, many make their own using plastic (square tube which fits inside each other) or aluminum or brass extrusions. Just go back to the old days of using things designed for other purposes 

 

 

This is an old Studiolith product made from curtain tracking dating back to the early P4 days

 

A very useful Exactoscale product again sadly unobtainable for years

 

 

These is the current Exactoscale product, whilst designed for the Tortoise motor can be adapted for others including manual operation

 

Link to the new C&L product

 

https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/?lightbox=dataItem-jy77k01w

 

Its multi scale/gauge as there is a host of pilot holes drilled  into the copperclad strip

 

 

[hayfield]

Something that has been hanging around for over a year is a Timber Tracks  1-7 single slip to be built to EM gauge. Timber Tracks sell these as EM/P4 gauge, well they should be one or another as the length varies slightly depending on whether you build to EM or P4 standards. As usual I started off with a Templot template, the first rule especially with crossings is to have an accurate plan. I offered up the fret to the plan to see where I could match the fret to the plan. Not only was the timber spacing different but more importantly many of the timber lengths were too short. In the end I used as many as the timbers that I could and cut the remainder from spare Timber Tracks timber strips I had.

 

 

As usual with crossings the common crossings were fitted first, followed by the bent and curved stock rails. once these are set the central crossing rails can be tacked in place, adjusted in situ. Once I am happy I glue all the chairs to the timbers

[Blandford1969]

Thanks for sharing this, I have learned quite a bit on how to build crossings from it.

[Dominion]

John, do you have advice on getting good alignment within common crossing sub assemblies when curved ?  I have single slip cross over to do, so I need to make 4 curved common crossings that will all be on my main line.  

Thanks, Tom