P4 3 point track gauges for use with chaired track

[hayfield]

Please can someone tell me where I can get some P4 3 point track gauges for use with C&L and Exactoscale chaired track.

 

I have just brought some Scalfour gauges and they are designed to hold the rail at 90 degrees and not at the required cant, which results in under gauged track when the rail settles back in the chairs, any thoughts please.

 

C&L do roller gauges and once Peter has sorted out Exactoscale they may do a set, but they are not mentioned on the old Exactoscale website.

[hayfield]

Mickey

 

Thanks that was quick, do I take it that they do 2 different types then, as the ones I brought from Alan Gibson clearly states on their web site

 

 

granted the license to produce these Protofour/Scalefour track gauges

 

TGS4/5 Scalefour three point track gauge (not above set) £7.50 £9.00

[hayfield]

Micky

 

Thanks again, I have no access to the Scalefour Society stores, I have sent an email but not had a replt yet, also waiting for Alan Gibson to check the Scalefour specification

[Gordon A]

Three point 18.83 track gauges also available from the EM Gauge Society.

The ones I have are designed to hold the rail upright, which if used with C&L and P4 Track Company (Exactoscale) components leads to gauge narrowing.

For this reason I have removed the outer portion of the legs allowing the rail to sit at the 1:20 angle. The inner leg keeps the rail to gauge.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

[hayfield]

Three point 18.83 track gauges also available from the EM Gauge Society.

The ones I have are designed to hold the rail upright, which if used with C&L and P4 Track Company (Exactoscale) components leads to gauge narrowing.

For this reason I have removed the outer portion of the legs allowing the rail to sit at the 1:20 angle. The inner leg keeps the rail to gauge.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

 

Gordon

 

Thanks for the suggestion and the work around. But it is a work around and not realy the answer to the problem at hand and I dont want to take a hacksaw to an £18 pair of gauges . Your solution stops gauge narrowing but runs the risk of gauge widening (unless I have missunderstood your reply)

 

I know manufactures cannot write descriptions for every eventuality, but when P4/S4 is a precise set of standards and building turnouts from plastic chaired components is if not must be getting close to the norm now, a warning that these gauges are not compattable for use with plastic chaired components should not be too much to ask.

[Grovenor]

Your solution stops gauge narrowing but runs the risk of gauge widening (unless I have missunderstood your reply)

I have never noticed this problem, so just checked mine. which are original Studiolith versions, none of the legs are long enough to reach the rail foot and consequently the rail can tilt until the bottom of the leg contacts the web of the rail, more than enough for 1:20. So you can leave enough of a lip on the outside legs to stop the gauge spreading but still allow the rail to tilt, leave about a mm. The outside leg needs to be clear of the rail foot to avoid holding it vertical.

If the gauges currently on sale reach right to the foot they are not suitable and need the excess leg filing off, you don't need that length on the inside either so it would be simplest just to use a nice flat file and file all 6 legs down the same.

The alternative DD_Wheelwrights version of the gauge does not hold the rail well at all and is only useful for post build checking, IMHO.

Regards

Keith

[buffalo]

I have two of the triangular gauges as supplied by Alan Gibson. In both cases, the slots were a little too deep, not enough to cover the full depth of C&L code 75 rail but enough to snag on the base. I have milled a little off the ends so that this doesn't happen but, as Keith says, a couple of minutes with a flat file would achieve the same result.

 

Nick

[hayfield]

Keith

 

Thanks a better solution, but realy a last resort, Should I have to take a file to a new set of gauges ?

[Coombe Barton]

Just checked my EMGS 18.83 gauges - they only hold the rail head.

 

Have you measured the depth to which your gauges hold the rail?

[buffalo]

...C&L do roller gauges and once Peter has sorted out Exactoscale they may do a set, but they are not mentioned on the old Exactoscale website.

The C&L roller gauges are machined from round bar with a slot that only holds the head. The Exactoscale ones only measure the gauge and don't hold the railhead (you can see a picture of them towards the bottom of the first page of trackwork section at www.wizardmodels.co.uk)

Thanks a better solution, but realy a last resort, Should I have to take a file to a new set of gauges ?

I suspect that whoever made them or drew up the spec didn't actually know about this issue. Maybe you shouldn't need to alter them but, personally, I've no qualms about adapting simple tools to improve them.

 

Nick

[Guest Belgian]

Gordon

 

Thanks for the suggestion and the work around. But it is a work around and not realy the answer to the problem at hand and I dont want to take a hacksaw to an £18 pair of gauges . Your solution stops gauge narrowing but runs the risk of gauge widening (unless I have missunderstood your reply)

 

I know manufactures cannot write descriptions for every eventuality, but when P4/S4 is a precise set of standards and building turnouts from plastic chaired components is if not must be getting close to the norm now, a warning that these gauges are not compattable for use with plastic chaired components should not be too much to ask.

Don't forget that P4 and S4 are/were two different standards.

 

JE

[Flymo748]

Don't forget that P4 and S4 are/were two different standards.

 

JE

 

Although in this context the difference is not relevant. To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P4_gauge :

 

"The P4 standards include options with reduced tolerances and an increased back-to-back measurement that are an exact scaling down of prototype dimensions, and which are referred to as S4 standards. These are chosen by railway modellers who wish to avoid the minor compromises designed into P4 standards."

 

For both P4 and S4 the gauge (distance between the inner faces of the head of the rail) of the track remains constant at 18.83mm. This is regardless of whether the 1:20 angle of the railhead is used or not.

 

HTH

Flymo

[hayfield]

Although in this context the difference is not relevant. To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P4_gauge :

 

"The P4 standards include options with reduced tolerances and an increased back-to-back measurement that are an exact scaling down of prototype dimensions, and which are referred to as S4 standards. These are chosen by railway modellers who wish to avoid the minor compromises designed into P4 standards."

 

For both P4 and S4 the gauge (distance between the inner faces of the head of the rail) of the track remains constant at 18.83mm. This is regardless of whether the 1:20 angle of the railhead is used or not.

 

HTH

Flymo

 

The depth of the cut in the gauges holds the whole rail head upright, so whilst the solvent is setting the gauge is 18.83. BUR when the gauge is removed the chairs revert to the angled cant thus reducing the gauge

[hayfield]

The C&L roller gauges are machined from round bar with a slot that only holds the head. The Exactoscale ones only measure the gauge and don't hold the railhead (you can see a picture of them towards the bottom of the first page of trackwork section at www.wizardmodels.co.uk)

 

I suspect that whoever made them or drew up the spec didn't actually know about this issue. Maybe you shouldn't need to alter them but, personally, I've no qualms about adapting simple tools to improve them.

 

Nick

 

It is not a simple as filing down a couple of small pips, as the outside parts of the gauge are thicker.

 

Having said that the answer may be to file down some rail to reduce the depth of the gauge, so the head is the only part that is held by the gauge, at least it will not damage the gauge. But there is no guarantee that the correct gauge will be achieved as the slot is still vertical not at an angle

[buffalo]

It is not a simple as filing down a couple of small pips, as the outside parts of the gauge are thicker.

 

It really is simple. Here's a photo of mine where you can hopefully see that all that has been done is to reduce the height of all four slotted parts equally. This can be done easily with a flat file across all of the upper face (with the gauge oriented as in the photo).

 

 

Having said that the answer may be to file down some rail to reduce the depth of the gauge, so the head is the only part that is held by the gauge, at least it will not damage the gauge. But there is no guarantee that the correct gauge will be achieved as the slot is still vertical not at an angle

I don't understand "file down some rail to reduce the depth of the gauge",

The gauge is maintained because the width of the slots has not been changed. They still hold the railhead but it is not a tight fit so it allows the rail to rotate as needed by the chairs. When the chairs are flat on the sleepers the rail sits at whatever angle the chairs determine and the track gauge ensures the distance between gauge faces is correct.

 

Nick

[Gordon A]

Buffalo's triangular gauge is the the same type as the one I modefied by removing the outer legs.

The flat square gauge and the Mint gauge (Big brass block) will also give you gauge widening on curves.

I have found that my track building technique has changed over time as different gauges and track materials have come on the market.

Initially I built copperclad with the rail soldered up right, just using three roller gauges, then when I acquired a flat square gauge I used that with a roller gauge either side. The roller gauges being used to hold the rail in place.

Then I changed the square gauge for a triangular gauge.

My current system still uses a combination of two roller gauges and a triangular gauge, but I check each section with a Mint gauge before moving on to the next piece. This is very effective at finding tight spots.

I am suggesting that it is a case of having a go on a piece of test track and if need be modifying any existing gauges to suit your needs / technique.

That is after all how we make improvements to existing systems.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

[hayfield]

Nick

 

I did not explain myself correctly. To reduce the depth of the slots I will file down a piece of rail and (temporary) glue some it in the slots to leave a gap equal to the head of the rail. That way I will not damage or alter the gauge.

 

Gordon

 

Thanks for the info, The flat square gauge and the Mint gauge not too certain what gauges these are, but a solid block may not be of use on a turnout once both switch/closure rails have been fitted.

 

I still come back to the fact that when buying expensive gauges, they should not need modifying !!

[Gordon A]

John,

 

The mint gauge is a solid brass block wider than 18.83 which has been milled away underneath leaving to straight raised "rails", the outer dimension of which is 18.83mm.

 

I will try and post a picture later on.

 

Gordon

[Coombe Barton]

I still come back to the fact that when buying expensive gauges, they should not need modifying !!

You buy a gauge for a purpose. The specification of the purpose should be stated.

 

If you use it outside that purpose then you have the option of not using it or modifying it for YOUR purpose.

[Miss Prism]

Pic of mint gauge.

 

Btw, the 'JBS' track gauge construction gauge (unfortunately no longer available) had an ingenious sprung clip on the outside that would allow the rail to be inclined at 1:20 when making track.

 

For gauge checking purposes, the Exactoscale 'set of four' (Exactoscale 4XX TG01) are extremely good.

 

I still come back to the fact that when buying expensive gauges, they should not need modifying !!

 

I can't disagree with that - it doesn't much for P4's 'image' does it! I have moaned about the depth of the claws on the claw gauge for quite some time, but still the old spec prevails.

[hayfield]

You buy a gauge for a purpose. The specification of the purpose should be stated.

 

If you use it outside that purpose then you have the option of not using it or modifying it for YOUR purpose.

 

Its advertised as a 3 point track gauge for building S4/P4 track, no mention that its designed for copperclad/ply and rivet construction only !! I want to use it for the purpose it is designed for.

 

I would have thought by now the Scalefour Society (and those who it allows to sell products) would have realised this problem exists, and at least have a warning. Or produce a product (with a smaller slot) that can be used for both types of construction methods

 

Gordon and Miss Prisim

 

Thanks for the info, will chat with Peter at C&L once he has Exactoscale sorted out

[Miss Prism]

Or produce a product (with a smaller slot) that can be used for both types of construction methods

 

The DD wheelwright's version was intended to do just that. The design was good, but unfortunately its production implementation was rubbish, at least on the one I tried.

 

The unfortunate reality is that construction gauges do vary slightly (claw railhead widths vary slightly between designs for example, and railhead widths vary slightly between different production draws of course), and P4 practictioners tend to accumulate a range of things, some of which they learn are better than others.

[buffalo]

I did not explain myself correctly. To reduce the depth of the slots I will file down a piece of rail and (temporary) glue some it in the slots to leave a gap equal to the head of the rail. That way I will not damage or alter the gauge.

...

I still come back to the fact that when buying expensive gauges, they should not need modifying !!

John, I really don't consider my gauges to have been damaged, nor has the gauge been altered. How could it be as I've only removed material in one plane? I prefer to think of them as improved. Packing the slots with spacers seems much more of a faff to me.

 

Whilst I agree that it would be great if someone sold a gauge that was really entended to allow the rail to lean inwards, that is clearly not the case. If the design of the gauge as sold is explained by the intention to hold rail vertically and this is appropriate for ply and rivet construction, what on earth is wrong with modifying it so that it works better with plastic chairs. Over the years I've modified a fair number of tools to suit different purposes and never seen it as an issue.

 

Having said that, I used these gauges together with others for a while before modifying them and I've just gone back and measured the track. Except for a short section (less than two inches long), none of it is under-gauge. I can only assume that when I used them in their unmodified state, I didn't press them down full on the rails but merely placed them over the railheads.

 

Nick

[R A Watson]

The whole question revolves around your intended use for the gauge, are you using them as a construction aid or to replicate prototype inclined rail track?

 

If you are trying to use them in the traditional prototype way you are only setting track gauge at the gauge corners of the rail, that is the inside top corner of the rail closest to the join of the wheel flange and tread.

 

If you are using them as a constructional aid for the model you will require a device which holds the rail at either the inclined or vertical angle (remember that although plain track is inclined a large amount of S & C work is vertical, not always entirely through the unit!).

 

Although I have no personal experience of the plastic chaired components which are available I understand that the chairs give an automatic inclination to the rail and through their design support the rail aleviating the gauge from this requirement. In this case you only need a tool which spaces the rails the correct distance apart by fitting between them. this is equivalent to the traditional prototype practice, and therefore adjustment or removal of the outer legs of the tool should cause no problems. You will need aditional unmodified tools for the vertical rail work noted above.

 

Anyone using the soldered construction method, either P C B sleepers or rivet style will need a tool which holds the rails both vertical and the correct distance apart and therefore there will be no need to alter the tool from it's designed state.

[Gordon A]

Not a very good picture John, but hopefully good enough:

To the left is what I refer to as a square gauge. The clamp on top was used to hold the rail upright for copper clad and ply & rivet construction. I dont use the clamp these days.

To the right is the Mint gauge. I have filed the extreme ends to a taper.

 

Gordon A

Bristol