Layout design case study

[The Stationmaster]

so chaps.

 

I have connected everything up and still have an issue when points are reversed. Keith's drawing seems to suggest a break in the switch rails before the crossing vee. The rails don't look like they touch the vee so i didn't think I needed this break. Centre left in the photo.

 

Any thoughts??

 

20161204_154406.jpg

 

Colin surely all four crossings (including the two K crossings) in the diamond need to be switchable and therefore gapped from each other and gapped from all adjacent rails?  Once you've fdomne that and if there is still a short then I would carefully check the copperclad sleepers to ensure they are all gapped.

[colin penfold]

Colin surely all four crossings (including the two K crossings) in the diamond need to be switchable and therefore gapped from each other and gapped from all adjacent rails? Once you've fdomne that and if there is still a short then I would carefully check the copperclad sleepers to ensure they are all gapped.

It's not the crossover with the diamond Mike it's the other one. I have all the rail gaps as suggested in Keith's diagram except the ones between the switch blades and the frog which is why I was asking if I need them. Having never used track like this before im beginning to understand the popularity of Peco!!! Edited December 5, 2016 by colin penfold

[The Stationmaster]

It's not the crossover with the diamond Mike it's the other one. I have all the rail gaps as suggested in Keith's diagram except the ones between the switch blades and the frog which is why I was asking if I need them. Having never used track like this before im beginning to understand the popularity of Peco!!!

 

Sorry Colin.  Right I suspect what might be happening is that the open switch rail is still on the same piece of copper as the stock rail so you will indeed have a  dead short if that is the case and the switch rail and wing rail are a single piece of rail without a gap.

[Izzy]

It's not the crossover with the diamond Mike it's the other one. I have all the rail gaps as suggested in Keith's diagram except the ones between the switch blades and the frog which is why I was asking if I need them. Having never used track like this before im beginning to understand the popularity of Peco!!!

 

With copperclad built track you have to allow for the fact that all rail on any sleeper will be electrically connected unless the sleeper is 'gapped' by making cuts in the copper surface. This means that all copperclad trackwork needs gapping and the convention is either to cut down the centre of all the sleepers, where it can show sometimes, or at the side of the rail. Sleepers for plain track often come ready gapped, but pointwork gapping can vary.

 

Again the convention is to gap down the middle to near the crossing where the closure rails are cut, and then both sides of the crossing, so it is isolated from both sides and electically powered by a changeover switch of some description to produce the correct polarity. If there is no gapping of the blade/closure rails, and they are in one piece to the crossing this would seem to suggest that different gapping is used.

 

Can you illustrate how the points are gapped? Do Marcway gap sleepers so the blades carry the power to the frog as per Peco? This might explain where problems are arising and what needs to be done.

 

Izzy

[colin penfold]

With copperclad built track you have to allow for the fact that all rail on any sleeper will be electrically connected unless the sleeper is 'gapped' by making cuts in the copper surface. This means that all copperclad trackwork needs gapping and the convention is either to cut down the centre of all the sleepers, where it can show sometimes, or at the side of the rail. Sleepers for plain track often come ready gapped, but pointwork gapping can vary.

 

Again the convention is to gap down the middle to near the crossing where the closure rails are cut, and then both sides of the crossing, so it is isolated from both sides and electically powered by a changeover switch of some description to produce the correct polarity. If there is no gapping of the blade/closure rails, and they are in one piece to the crossing this would seem to suggest that different gapping is used.

 

Can you illustrate how the points are gapped? Do Marcway gap sleepers so the blades carry the power to the frog as per Peco? This might explain where problems are arising and what needs to be done.

 

Izzy

Thanks Izzy and Mike. Izzy doez this illustration answer your question? The grey looking visible gaps are ones I have added where I cant clearly see if Marcway did them properly. Theirs can be seen , if you look closely but have been painted over (by them)

 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by colin penfold

[Memphis32]

Sounds like you might need to disconnect the switches and check what is isolated from what with a multimeter (or LED, resistor and battery)

[Izzy]

Colin, as I began to suspect, it would seem that Marcway gap their pointwork so it works in a similar manner to Peco. This relies on the point blades pressing against the stock rail to carry power to both closure rails and crossing, so in effect both blades/closure rails/and the crossing are electrically one unit which all changes polarity depending on which way the blades are set.

 

Okay, this isn't ideal, but as supplied can be adapted to be better by gapping the closure rails where it has been suggested, several sleepers before the crossing nose, and then using a switch to power the crossing/wing rails section for correct polarity. Bonding the blades/closure rails to the relevent stock rails and gapping down the centre to make them isolated from each other (obviously) then provides reliablle electrical connection for the blades.

 

However, it would appear that you have not gapped the closure rails or bonded them to the stock rails, but have additionally gapped between the wing rails and crossing nose which wasn't really needed (sorry) and might mean more work to get reliable electrical connection to the wing rails if you then just put the gaps in the closure rails where it has been suggested.

 

As you are still having issues I think perhaps you need to firstly produce a drawing of all the pointwork, and where all the rail gaps and sleeper gaps are located. With regard to the latter not only those you have added but the original ones as well because I wonder how the diamond crossing has been gapped and just what bits of rail are bonded together over the pointwork as whole. The problem being, as you are discovering, that each individual section might work okay electrically, but falls down when all connected up.

 

Izzy

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks Izzy and Mike. Izzy doez this illustration answer your question? The grey looking visible gaps are ones I have added where I cant clearly see if Marcway did them properly. Theirs can be seen , if you look closely but have been painted over (by them)

 

20161204_210445.jpg

 

20161204_210035.jpg

 

That will give you a dead short Colin - there's no gap anywhere between the switch rail toes and the crossing and if the open switch rail is making contact through the copperclad that's it - just the same as wiring the two opposite running rails to each other;  exactly as Izzy has said.

[colin penfold]

I just need to say a huge thank you to Keith (Grovenor) for not only doing me a full wiring diagram which helped me to work out where i had gone wrong (mixing feeds) but on top of that he has identified some sleepers that were not gapped. As a result i can now reverse the points without a complete short.

 

Keith has really gone to a lot of trouble and it's a wonderful example of how good this forum is and the amount of help you can get Thanks Keith!

 

Sadly I still have an issue to resolve as the track power is flickering. I have never encountered this before but at least methodical testing should crack it, suspect it's a minor short somewhere.

[colin penfold]

Happy new year to all my readers and contributors.

 

I hope that any challenges you face in the coming year are surmountable, whether in modelling or real life.

[Guest]

Happy New Year to you Colin. Speaking of challenges, are you wired up and working yet?

[colin penfold]

Happy New Year to you Colin. Speaking of challenges, are you wired up and working yet?

Hi Pete. Thanks to the input of folks on here I bought a multimeter and eventually found all the sleepers that Marcway didn't gap properly. I did a bit of rewiring using the diagram Keith drew me and finally I think I've eliminated all the faults. I've now cut off the excess sleepers and taped most of the track down. I might be able to post a celebratory first train before I go back to work next week. Thanks for asking!

[The Stationmaster]

Happy New Year Colin

[colin penfold]

All plain track laid and wired. All now tested using my "contractor's loco" the Dapol terrier, Stepney. Track and wheels need a good clean but it's painting, dummy rodding and ballasting next.

 

[gwrrob]

I couldn't concentrate after looking at your new avatar Col.

[colin penfold]

Nothing to beat a bit of Sherzy.

[Mikkel]

Hi Colin, the pointwork looks great, glad that it's all worked out

 

The stop block is interesting! 

[colin penfold]

Thanks Mikkel. I should have said that I cut out the excess sleepers that had been left in by Marcway once i had got the track taped down. Made a lot of dust hence the hesitant running.

 

A wise woman once said "you can't have too many cushions."

Edited January 3, 2017 by colin penfold

[colin penfold]

Hi all.

 

Opinions welcome here.

 

As well as the additional sleeperage I have taken out Marcway went a bit overboard on the checkrails in places. I have marked what I consider to be excess rail in red. The attached photos are North to South (up line to the left)

 

I have based my marking up on some good photos of the track in the book Burghclere signalman.

 

Be grateful for your thoughts. Am i right to remove the red rails and have I missed any?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks

[Izzy]

I believe the use of continuous check rails varies quite a bit with regard to the kind of locations that are involved, straight track sections in pointwork formations, but if you are copying an actual location with photos to show the design I would go with that.

 

However, as regards the buffer stop, the rails are not really check rails as such, just part of the design which help give strength and because they are inside the gauge are spaced out to clear the wheel flanges just the same as check rails. So these shouldn't be touched as such.

 

Izzy

Edited January 4, 2017 by Izzy

[colin penfold]

Thanks Izzy. The rails on the buffer stop aren't marked for removal, they are painted rusty because I pre assembled it to speed up tracklaying.

 

Really appreciate your contribution.

[Memphis32]

Seems to me you're doing half the job you've already paid for with that track...

[colin penfold]

It has felt a bit like that at times. To be honest I'd probably not go that way again.

[mightbe]

Hi Colin,

 

I'm sorry to hear of your woes with Marcway. I'm sorrier still that they sold you and presumably still offer such a questionable product. Sadly it bears only passing resemblance to trackwork.

 

Re: check rails etc. Everything you've marked should be removed if possible. There's also the frankly bizarre diamond, but short of building yourself a replacement on a proper template I don't think much can be done about it. 

 

Quentin

Edited January 5, 2017 by mightbe

[colin penfold]

The last few sessions have been taken up with the long, fiddly but strangely rewarding task of dummy point rodding.

 

I used brass wire to represent circular section rodding, Modelu stools, etched brass cranks and FPLs from the Wills kit. I was worried about the brass wire shorting the track so used some plastic rod for those sections that go under running lines.

 

 

 

I have decided to have a crack at representing signal wires using monofilament fishing line. That's next....