BITTON

[emt_911]

I have just blow up the area of the Goods Shed and it shows a slight curve, but as MY Bitton cannot be an excact copy of the real Bitton due to too many anomalies  and so when I lay out the track on the board this week I may need to have the Shed Road strait as I did on this mock up  a couple of weeks ago, but we will see this week.

Original full Station Plan - Copy - Copy.png

 

First track alignment test 008.JPG

 Lt Colonel La de Da hyphen Poshname might have something to say about Andy blowing up a shed. He'll complain that you're taking work away from his troops.  

[Andrew P]

Andy, before going to far aren't you going to wait for the proper Templot plan from Cav? You will be able to print the entire plan at actual size and put it on your baseboards - no need to mess around mocking things up with track.

 

In the meantime build a few more turnouts for practice - they will improve with each one you build. If you don't use them on the scenic part, as long as they work you can use them in the fiddle yard (yes I know you were planning to use Peco) even if they don't look very pretty.

Hi Steve, Cav cant do the final Templot until I have worked out how it will finally go on the board and joins so its a bit of a Chicken and Egg situation at the moment, so I need to do more mock ups in order to give Cav the correct information to produce a final draft of the Templot Plan.

 

As for practicing on more points, yes I will be doing that anyway.

 

Cheers again.

[Andrew P]

If you dont curve it Andy you end up with not enough room for the station buildings and approaches.

That's what I thought from the last mock up, it also looked O.K. and not false.

[Ray H]

Andy

 

With my head firmly below the barricade to avoid any incoming from non-believers can I suggest you look at the frog/common crossing area of one of Gordon S' OO-SF turnouts and see what you think of the appearance compared to the ones you and George made today.

 

You'll find that the wheels roll over the gap with barely a twitch and if you're serious about going down the handbuilt pointwork route for all the scenic area I think you'll find the results are worthwhile. Save for the gauges (i.e. about £10) and possibly some slight tweaking of back to back measurements on stock you'll be able to continue with what you already have and are planning.

[Andrew P]

Andy

 

With my head firmly below the barricade to avoid any incoming from non-believers can I suggest you look at the frog/common crossing area of one of Gordon S' OO-SF turnouts and see what you think of the appearance compared to the ones you and George made today.

 

You'll find that the wheels roll over the gap with barely a twitch and if you're serious about going down the handbuilt pointwork route for all the scenic area I think you'll find the results are worthwhile. Save for the gauges (i.e. about £10) and possibly some slight tweaking of back to back measurements on stock you'll be able to continue with what you already have and are planning.

Your O.K. Ray, I welcome all input, again Bitton is back on track and some of the most lively, informative and refreshing posts for a very long time.

 

Gordon's trackwork is wonderful and I will go back and have another look in a mo.

 

George and I tried a Bachmann wagon with the correct B2B and it didn't drop into the V or get tight at any point, but you make a very good point about tolerances and standards that I need to work towards. 

 

Cheers again.

[sp1]

AndyWith my head firmly below the barricade to avoid any incoming from non-believers can I suggest you look at the frog/common crossing area of one of Gordon S' OO-SF turnouts and see what you think of the appearance compared to the ones you and George made today.You'll find that the wheels roll over the gap with barely a twitch and if you're serious about going down the handbuilt pointwork route for all the scenic area I think you'll find the results are worthwhile. Save for the gauges (i.e. about £10) and possibly some slight tweaking of back to back measurements on stock you'll be able to continue with what you already have and are planning.

I posted a picture a couple of weeks ago (page 80-something?) to show the difference to Andy.

Like you I'll now keep my head down to avoid the flak from non-believers, most, if not all of whom have never tried it, and therefore can't understand that it works, and works very well!

(I did point out to Andy to bear in mind the work Jason has already done for him to ensure compatibity, so for that reason he may not want to go down this route).

[sp1]

You beat me to the post Andy!

 

I would add that, having tried gauges for different 00 standards I actually find 00-sf easier to build!

[Tim Dubya]

You beat me to the post Andy!

 

I would add that, having tried gauges for different 00 standards I actually find 00-sf easier to build!

 

and all your stock will run better on it too (and all you point and crossing work will look the mutts!)

[Andrew P]

I've just had a look at Easwood Town and in Post #1821 Gordon has ripped up all the wonderful trackwork and complex hand built points on one side of the Layout for a re vamp, he also states in that post that the later points were built to OOSF with a 1mm gap on the check rails, I think mine must be 1.6mm as I used a 1.6mm piece of PCB Sleeper to maintain an accurate gap and as that works for the stock we tried I will leave it at that for now.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Andrew P

[Andrew P]

One thing that did come to light during discussions with Lee on Saturday was the door access, now I have talked for many Months about the GATE, but as I need to be able to tip the boards over to access the wiring etc I have deduced that a GATE is no longer a practical proposition and therefore we will probably go for a lift out section the same as Lee has done with outstanding success on his own Layout, Braylynn Town.

 

Another reason for this is to enable the tracks to stay on more of a curve all the way around the end, and only tighten up to about 36'' Radius as it enters the Storage Yard. Also the door section has to be on an Embankment with the A431 at the lower level and passing under the running lines, again as per the Prototype and we will cut the angle of the lift out section so that the cut is at 90 degrees to the rails for a neater job.

[sp1]

I've just had a look at Easwood Town and in Post #1821 Gordon has ripped up all the wonderful trackwork and complex hand built points on one side of the Layout for a re vamp, he also states in that post that the later points were built to OOSF with a 1mm gap on the check rails, I think mine must be 1.6mm as I used a 1.6mm piece of PCB Sleeper to maintain an accurate gap and as that works for the stock we tried I will leave it at that for now.

1.6mm is FAR to wide for consistent good running - in fact, I believe Peco uses less than that! (I don't have any Peco to measure).

1.25mm -1.3mm is more normal, unless using one of the 'finer' standards.

Edited November 16, 2014 by sp1

[Andrew P]

1.6mm is FAR to wide for consistent good running - in fact, I believe Peco uses less than that! (I don't have any Peco to measure).

1.25mm -1.3mm is more normal, unless uses one of the 'finer' standards.

Cheers Steve, I hadn't realised that, I will have a look at a Peco tomorrow and possibly re do one of mine just to try it down closer to 1mm as per Eastwood Town, I will also ask Jason what gap he has done the Trailing Point and Slip at.

[sp1]

Cheers Steve, I hadn't realised that, I will have a look at a Peco tomorrow and possibly re do one of mine just to try it down closer to 1mm as per Eastwood Town, I will also ask Jason what gap he has done the Trailing Point and Slip at.

If you close the gap to 1mm this will result in you having to alter all wheel back to back to 14.8mm, OR reduce the track gauge gauge through the crossing to 16.2mm (00-sf) which means you can leave all of your back to backs at 14.4 - 14.5mm - that's the whole point of 00-sf: it gives you the finer flangeway and check rail gaps, and thus smoother running, without the hassle of altering everything to 14.8mm back to back.

If you are sticking to 16.5mm track gauge the options are to go with 1mm gaps and adjust all back to backs, or use 1.25mm and hardly have to adjust anything. Remember 00-sf only needs the reduction to 16.2mm track gauge through the crossing - the rest of the track stays at 16.5mm: and I defy anyone to detect the 0.3mm reduction visually!

 

There have been long discussions over all of this - I think you need to take advice from someone you trust!

 

Now rejoining Ray to hide from the flak that is going to ensue!!

[sp1]

Perhaps I should have said in the last post that you should get advice from someone you trust AND is aware of the various ramifications of the different options!

 

I think problems arise when people simply get a set of gauges for '00' not realising they are not all the same, and then get problems with derailments, or stock jamming in the crossings, without realising the reasons why.

[Donw]

I do not know what gauges you are using Andy but the circular type should have two groves each side the outer ones are for the running rails the inner set the check and wing rails so the width of the bit between gives the flangeway. Usually there is a flat on one side with the outer side of the running rail groove ground away so the gauge can be used close to the V of the crossing.

 

Someone rated my earlier post as indecipherable. If you have any specific questions please PM me.

 

Don

[Clive Mortimore]

 Lt Colonel La de Da hyphen Poshname might have something to say about Andy blowing up a shed. He'll complain that you're taking work away from his troops.  

Lance Comical 911,

 

Any more of your lip and you will find yourself on an extra duty.

 

Regimental Sargent Major L. E. F. T. Wright

[sp1]

I do not know what gauges you are using Andy but the circular type should have two groves each side the outer ones are for the running rails the inner set the check and wing rails so the width of the bit between gives the flangeway. Usually there is a flat on one side with the outer side of the running rail groove ground away so the gauge can be used close to the V of the crossing.

 

Someone rated my earlier post as indecipherable. If you have any specific questions please PM me.

 

Don

The gauges from Wizard Models (earlier post from Andy says that's what he is using) are those made by Markits

[raymw]

Hi Andrew,

 

Unless you're running clockwork or steam or battery powered loco's your points still need a bit of work.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[Jock67B]

I do not know what gauges you are using Andy but the circular type should have two groves each side the outer ones are for the running rails the inner set the check and wing rails so the width of the bit between gives the flangeway. Usually there is a flat on one side with the outer side of the running rail groove ground away so the gauge can be used close to the V of the crossing.

 

Someone rated my earlier post as indecipherable. If you have any specific questions please PM me.

 

Don

Just press 'list' at the end of the ratings line and you'll see the culprit - could be fat finger syndrome though!

Kind regards,

Jock.

[sp1]

Andy

Just for information - Do NOT let this confuse you (you need to carry on with what Jason is assisting you with) - this is the best picture I have found to illustrate the reason for 00-SF:http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60915-henstridge-in-00-fs/

Look at the pictures in the first post.

The two turnouts in the third picture show the difference in appearance, and even though the radius of each is different, which may mislead the eye, the 0.3 narrower track gauge is not noticeable (look at the straight section at the bottom of the last picture): the key part is the area between the check rails and through the 'V' is the only area that needs the 16.3mm track gauge- everything else can be 16.5mm.

This improves both the appearance and running (and yes, I HAVE tried both).

This I must stress, is for information only, as you asked, I again stress: FOLLOW Jason's guidance.

Andy

Just for information - Do NOT let this confuse you (you need to carry on with what Jason is assisting you with) - this is the best picture I have found to illustrate the reason for 00-SF:http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60915-henstridge-in-00-fs/

Look at the pictures in the first post.

The two turnouts in the third picture show the difference in appearance, and even though the radius of each is different, which may mislead the eye, the 0.3 narrower track gauge is not noticeable (look at the straight section at the bottom of the last picture): the key part is the area between the check rails and through the 'V' is the only area that needs the 16.3mm track gauge- everything else can be 16.5mm.

This improves both the appearance and running (and yes, I HAVE tried both).

This I must stress, is for information only, as you asked, I again stress: FOLLOW Jason's guidance.

Someone (Ray?) earlier mentioned comparison pictures of 00 and 00-sf trackwork: I posted the above back on page 87 (post 2164)

[sp1]

Andy

While I am here, if you are ordering more PCB sleeper strips I noticed (page 82) that Jason has used 1.06mm x 4mm strip from C & L on the crossover he has built for you (this is a better match, height wise, for both C & L and SMP flexi-track).

1.6mm, which you are using at the moment, is noticeably thicker.

[67A]

All very very interesting and informative stuff on here lately, a lot of it may and probably does explain why I have had some problems on Dent. Can anyone advise what gauges C+L provide for 'OO' gauge. I used these for most trackbuilding but as there is no 'flat' as Don mentions in post 2607 I had two brass gauges in my toolbox which obviously easier to file down I used for the frog areas etc, so this may explain several problems, too late now for me but be careful Andy and make sure you stick to one standard, I new nothing of this before I started Boooo Hoooo.

[RBE]

I used C&L on Outon Road. They give a 1mm flangeway which looks good I think. Mike you are right they dont have a flat though. I simply fitted the stock rail spaced from the crossing with the gauge as near to the v as it would go. Check rails were then added in a similar way and where it clashed at the v I just used the check rail groove on the stock rail and pushed the end of the gauge agaist the v to set the checks. This works as all of the grooves and ridges on the gauge are 1mm wide.

[Ray H]

I have no desire to confuse anyone who is not accustomed to some of the finer points of the above discussion but I fear we may be in grave danger of doing so. I also confess with my hand held very high that I am probably not the most appropriate person to try to explain this. Apologies in advance if the attempt that follows simply chucks more coal on the fire. Further apologies if I'm repeating something already explained before.

 

OO-SF reduces the gaps between check rails and adjacent running rails be they the frog or the stock rail (i.e. the other running rail in the frog area) by reducing the overall track gauge by 0.3mm down to 16.2mm. This is well within the tolerances that are acceptable to modern stock and anything else that is suitable for code 75 rail. It requires no changes to BtB (Back to Back) measurements that wouldn't be required for ordinary OO (16.5mm) rolling stock but the appearance is far superior and that is the main reason for people switching to it as far as I am aware. It does however require the use of dedicated track gauges (and rail spacers) to achieve the reduced flangeway.

 

OO-SF has been designed to accommodate anything that conventional OO will so you get an appearance more akin to EM or P4 without all the problems of re-wheeling.

 

Any attempt to reduce the flangeway whilst retaining the 16.5mm track gauge will require BTBs to be widened.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Edited to add:-

 

There's no reason other than the appearance why you can't mix points built to either gauge on the same scenic section of a layout. Furthermore, OO-SF points can be connected to standard OO plain line by easing the gauge back to 16.5mm between the frog and the relevant rail end. In fact it is better to use 16.5mm plain line on curves without check rails.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Ray H

[sp1]

I used C&L on Outon Road. They give a 1mm flangeway which looks good I think. Mike you are right they dont have a flat though. I simply fitted the stock rail spaced from the crossing with the gauge as near to the v as it would go. Check rails were then added in a similar way and where it clashed at the v I just used the check rail groove on the stock rail and pushed the end of the gauge agaist the v to set the checks. This works as all of the grooves and ridges on the gauge are 1mm wide.

If using the C&L gauges you can use a strip of metal 1mm thick - these are available from the EM Gayge Society as 'crossing flangeway gauges' as EM also uses the 1mm spacing! You could also use feeler gauges (as used for car engines) but these will not give you exactly 1mm - these nearest is a few thou over 1mm. Alternatively - and I got some from Debs here on RMWeb who sells gauges for various O gauge specs: believe it or not S7 also uses 1mm! I went this route as found it very hard to find suitable 1mm metal strips - ie in steel or aluminium (so that solder doesn't stick to them).

For the check rail I use a check rail gauge (I use 00-sf) as this is easier for this critical dimension: not sure that these are available for other 00 standards - gauging this from the stock rail may not give you a precise measurement (eg on curves), however if using the gauges from the likes of SMP or markits the gaps are something like 1.25mm - this is not then so critical due to the inherent 'slop' built into 00 (try putting a wagon on the track and pushing it side to side to see this (that is, with back to back around 14.5mm) - also the amount of side to side axle movement on loco chassis). However, with the C&L L gauges, using 1mm, this is more critical, and you may actually need gauge widening on curves of less than 3 feet due to the 14.8mm back to back!

Edited November 17, 2014 by sp1