'O' gauge ? first tentative steps. Corrugated goods shed part 3: Painting and weathering

[Donw]

I wouldn't get too hung up on the way the chairs were facing. Direction of traffic, gradients, where trains were braking or accelerating could all affect which way the keys were likely to be creeping. Secondly these worked loose from time to time and if one kept working out fast the gang could try putting it in the other way to see if it helped. Even if you had a photo of a turnout who knows whether a change of ganger could alter things.

My first trials with 0 gauge track were using Rocket chairs and keys cut from matchsticks progress was slow and abandoned for Beer, Motorbikes and Girls. When I returned to 0 gauge years later the C+L components ( then marketed by Alan Gibson) were a great relief.

Don

[David Siddall]

Thanks for that encouragement Don, as its all starting to get a bit scary. First off, the 'Timbertracks' base is two sleepers shorter than C&L's own A5 template and the sleeper spacing is out of kilter with the template too... however I eventually worked out where things should go by deciding that the length of the blades and the position of the common crossing (vee) are what we might call the datum and working out where everything else needs to go in relation to their positions.

 

So here it is.... straight 'stock rail' secured in position. 'Butanone' fixes the moulded chairs to the ply surprisingly effectively though I think I'll leave a hefty book on top of the whole thing overnight to ensure the bond is secure and nothing lifts. The 'common crossing' and the 'check rail' are still loosely positioned at this stage ...I just wanted to experiment to see how severely you can hack the single non-slide chair type about to represent the other types required and still have them serve a functional purpose).

 

More tomorrow (arrival of the correct roller gauges permitting, otherwise I guess I'll be painting my Peco mineral wagon) ...but so far, so good and all really rather exciting :-)

 

[3 link]

Hi David,

 

Looks like your doing fine from what I can see, and by the time your finished this turnout you will think to yourself " this is a piece of cake " and realise it's quite an enjoyable part of the hobby. And like Don said nothing is cast in stone and especially all things Great Western.

 

ATB, Martyn.

[David Siddall]

Bit of an 'uh oh' moment when I came to moving on to the next stage this morning ... (well that's the polite way of putting it anyway)!

 

That photo which shows the straight 'stock rail' in place, whilst looking quite promising, conceals the fact that things are not as they should be even at this early stage! 'Timbertracks' bases do hold traps for the inexperienced or unwary despite their potential convenience! I've mentioned the first two already but they're worth repeating... the third and fourth are quite alarming but if you do fall into them (as I did) the consequences are fortunately reversible.

 

1. The A5 base I'm working with has one fewer sleeper at either end than the C&L A5 printed template. The missing standard width sleeper at the 'toe' (single track) end can easily be cut-out from the surrounding ply sheet. However if you were to use the same technique to create one for the one at the 'crossing' (vee) end there's insufficient spare to cut with the grain so you'll have to cut across it... hmmmm?

 

2. The sleeper spacing of the ply base doesn't match the printed turnout template. Nonetheless a bit of head-scratching and component shuffling, based on taking the 'crossing' position and blade length shown on the template as the most important aspects of the turnout, will eventually result in everything falling into the right place and relationship.

 

However...

 

3. DON'T under any circumstances assume that the webs between the sleepers are a guide the stock rail locations. They aren't! They only bear an approximate relationship to the position of the straight and curved stock rails. Lay your straight stock rail directly over the straight web and you'll end up with a turnout which is severely off-centre on its sleepers (yep... you guessed it). Fortunately the bond between chair and ply, whilst surprisingly strong, isn't immune to a sharp curved scalpel blade.

 

Likewise...

 

4. DO take the imprecation to start with the 'crossing' (vee) when using a Timbertracks base as gospel (...it's quite a long way into the additional 'guide' sheet supplied with the base). Even if every piece of advice you've ever read or all the experience you've ever gained from building other simple turnouts screams 'start from the straight stock rail'... don't! Start with the 'common crossing' (vee) and work from there to the straight stock rail.

 

So hey ho... everything secured in place so far all came apart OK so off we go again.

[Warspite]

David

 

I do admire your tenacity and patience with this. I'll leave it to the experts on here to comment on your recent experiences but this thread is becoming an essential guide to constructing a "turnout-in-a-bag". Those of us who have feared to tread this path will learn so much from how you are approaching things ...... or we'll just go back to our Peco turnouts and accept what we've got!

 

Keep up the great work - you've got a very good support group on here, all watching every step with interest.

 

 

Stephen

[Debs.]

Keep up the great work - you've got a very good support group on here, all watching every step with interest.

 

Ditto!

[David Siddall]

"Puffer nutter back on track after initial efforts hit buffers!"

 

Sorry couldn't resist that... have just been listing to news of government plans to crack on with HS2 on Radio 4 - basically a rant about how much better the French are at building new lines than we are peppered with tired old clichés by a bored journalist. So thought I'd try my own version :-)

[Matador]

When I received my Point in a bag I was also a little alarmed to see that the printed turnout does not match the Timber base. I think that C&L are great people but its something that should be rectified, a great product let down by a simple mistake somewhere along the way.

David

A Brit in the USA

[Matador]

I have just written to C&L with regards the problem on the Timbertracks bases

I await the reply

David

A Brit in the USA

[David Siddall]

Major progress today after the rather depressing reversals of this morning - albeit said progress had to be punctuated by a lengthy walk with the dogs to clear my head. Breathing Butanone fumes for any length of time isn't a terribly good idea and can result in a spectacular headache (...though the slight feeling of euphoria, probably caused by the fumes rather than the progress, goes some way to offsetting the affliction ;-)

 

By gritting my teeth and starting again I now have something I'm really rather pleased with... and by starting again with the 'common crossing' (it took a while to decide not to land the pre-assembled little beauty precisely on the vee-shaped guide provided on Timbertracks base but about 1mm south to conform to the critical geometry suggested by the template), I've now got both stock rails in place with an almost full complement of chairs and one check-rail. I know I should have probably left the latter 'till later but the new roller gauges made locating it correctly what could best be described as 'a bit of a doddle'!

 

 

You can certainly see from this pic' just how far adrift the stock rails are now from the webs in the sleeper base, but by careful measuring and averaging with reference to the template the formation is now all sitting square and central on its sleepers and the curved stock radius is a precise match to the drawing. I'll cut the unsightly sleeper webs away when I remove the framework. Well worth the effort and a lesson I'm happy to have learned - a bit like 'measure thrice, cut once'!

 

BTW, I know why C&L supply so many slide chairs in the kit. Chopping them up allows you to create all the four-bolt examples which locate the 'crossing' and which fit into locations where clearances are an issue. I achieved best results with a very sharp No. 10 curved scalpel blade - anything larger resulted in a hail of small pieces of moulded plastic shrapnel and somewhat imprecise cuts where precision was most needed!

 

So... after no more than a couple sticky digital moment with the 'super-glue' later (digital in the finger sense) I have something that's beginning to look, to my eyes anyway, quite like a turnout; and upon the crossing end of which my part-finished Peco mineral wagon seems to perch with surprising ease. I used a tiny amount of 'super-glue' by the way to secure the non-slide side of the slide chairs to the rail sides, otherwise that section of the turnout all got a bit floppy and imprecise from the gauging point of view.

 

Despite the fact that they're not exactly cheap I'm also really I'm glad I went for the pre-formed 'crossing' as they appear to be so well made that there's little chance of a decent pair of '7mm fine' wagon wheels dropping into the crossing gap in the way those who've used Peco's 'OO' r-t-r gauge turnouts are depressingly familiar.

 

Should really have done some work today but 'WTH'... there's always tomorrow morning after which I can get back to the turnout tomorrow afternoon. And just in case anyone spots an incorrect chair or key direction... whilst I hold your superior prototype knowledge in total respect, please forgive me, I really don't think I've got the heart to pull it all apart again. I'll just live with any minor errors in this first one (it's going in the yard where it'll be ballasted almost up to rail-level with the crud of ages anyway) and I promise to do better next time ;-)

 

TTFN

 

David

[David Siddall]

When I received my Point in a bag I was also a little alarmed to see that the printed turnout does not match the Timber base. I think that C&L are great people but its something that should be rectified, a great product let down by a simple mistake somewhere along the way.

I agree with you David, Pete's been an absolute star over the phone and I cannot fault their customer service. He's also agreed to find a few minutes to chat at the Bristol show later this month. As we're probably be asking him the same questions let's pool answers in the spirit of doing what we can to support a great supplier and helping fellow modellers.

 

D

[3 link]

Hi David,

 

The paper template plan you are using goes way back to when Len Newman owned C&L and the wooden bases are quite a recent addition from Brian Lewis C&L's last owner, I do not think at anytime the timber base is mean't to be used for scale purposes more just to hold the timbers in place. The original paper templates have always been spot on with there dimensions including the 3 way and double slips, the only thing I do alter is to use a different set of roller gauges on the lead up to the knuckles to stop any wheel drop occuring. It doesn't sound a lot but I use 31.5mm on this section and it does make a difference, Dikitriki of this parish also uses these gauges on his layout called Heyside and there is a thread somewhere on here explaining in much more detail and photos.

 

ATB, Martyn.

[Debs.]

.......there is a thread somewhere on here explaining in much more detail and photos.

 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/20896-marcway-v-cl-7mm-turnouts/

[3 link]

Thank you Debs,

 

This is one of those frustrating things I still have not worked out how to do, amongst other things .

 

ATB, Martyn.

[David Siddall]

I do not think at any time the timber base is meant to be used for scale purposes more just to hold the timbers in place. The original paper templates have always been spot on

I don't doubt that second statement in the slightest Martyn, and as I've suggested in my last post, my advice to any beginner building one of these kits would be that if anything doesn't appear to match the template: 1) trust the template not the sleeper base; and 2) work out a way of adjusting things so that what you build matches the template as closely as possible. Referring to the template which came with my A5 kit (albeit a tad late, which can only be excused by inexperience) certainly saved me from producing what would have otherwise turned out to be a seriously dodgy turnout.

 

Re. your former suggestion though, my reading of C&L's website content on the subject suggests that the Timbertracks range of sleeper bases are intended to be used intact as the basis of track formations. Again, all I'd suggest to anyone new to the turnout bases (based on my initialexperience) is that they may have to 'engage the little grey cells' (as Poirot might say) a little more than might have been anticipated during the early stages of the construction process. I'm certainly not concerned that the plywood ties between the sleepers aren't underneath the stock rails at this stage on my turnout (even though I thought they would be), because I'm going to follow C&L's advice and remove them all when I lay the beast in its final location on my as yet un-built baseboards.

 

That last sentence does however sum up why I think I like the 'Timbertracks' concept for turnouts. The big deal for me being that they are remarkably robust and thus comfortably capable of absorbing a fair degree of inept, ham-fisted abuse during the construction process. Things can be moved, re-glued, and the whole thing can be picked up, turned around and accessed/viewed from different angles at any stage. Whilst I wouldn't recommend testing this next statement, they even seem capable of surviving being dropped from a modest height (...yes, to my eternal shame, I've so far managed to do that too!).

 

...the only thing I do alter is to use a different set of roller gauges on the lead up to the knuckles to stop any wheel drop occurring. It doesn't sound a lot but I use 31.5mm on this section and it does make a difference...

That explains something to which I've so far not given a great deal of thought... though I've certainly seen mention of gauge options in a couple of magazine articles and on web forums (particularly the Templot forum) before you mentioned it. I suppose I just assumed 31.5 to be to 7mm scale what 18mm (EM) is to 4mil - a sort of visually superior half-way house between '7mm fine' and the rather more mathematically precise 'Scale 7'? I will though admit to having to 'Google' 'knuckle' to discover which part of the turnout you were referring to (...but that's OK, I know now :-)

 

However, having started using 32mm track gauges I think I'll stick with them for this turnout and see how my solitary wagon behaves. If there's any unsightly rock and roll as it approaches the 'knuckle' I'll certainly consider 31.5 for future attempts but there does seem to be just a 'leeeeetle' bit of contention in some quarters over whether 31.2 or 31.5 is the way to go? To be honest 32mm gauge looks so much better than the 'N' and 'OO' gauge compromises I've worked with over the past 40-odd years that I doubt I'll be considering such an enhanced level of finesse until I've got at least one working 7mm layout under my belt.

 

But... just in case I have a change of heart, could you let us know who you got your 31.5mm gauges from?

 

D

[dikitriki]

Hi David

 

I guess I'm the most active online proponent of 31.5mm gauge trackwork, as the builder of Heyside. In my opinion, the difference in the quality of running is huge. It's not the 1/2mm difference in width that matters, but (visual benefits aside) the length of the gap between the wing rail knuckle and the tip of the V is almost halved. There is no drop into the gap as the tread is supported all the way, even on curved C13 turnouts. I had a fairly comprehensive thread on the last RM web incarnation, but it is still unavailable at the moment.

 

32mm does work, make no mistake, but the standards to which you are working are a historic compromise, and don't make sense when subject to close scrutiny.

 

If, once you have got a couple of turnouts under your belt, you wish to work to a better standard, I would go to 31.5 (which is what it always should have been) rather than 31.2.

 

One other thing. Building your own trackwork is great fun, and it opens up a whole new world of possibilities.

 

Richard

[dikitriki]

Here's the business end of a 31.5mm turnout.

 

 

and here's a PECO standard turnout with a 31.5mm turnout built to the same geometry to illustrate the difference.

 

 

Richard

[David Siddall]

Thank you Richard, wow...

 

This is all getting a bit humbling. Prior to discovering RMWeb I was fairly happy solitary modeller who was reasonably pleased with steadily raising my game ...albeit, looking at things in retrospect, doing things in a fairly conservative way. I think what was lacking was that I wasn't exactly being challenged. Now I'm variously being advised, guided and encouraged by the experience of other beginners who's work I seriously admire and even more astonishingly by modellers with encyclopaedic knowledge and experience. As a result I'm attempting things I would never even have aspired to before!

 

Flippin' eck... :-)

 

PS: I'm guessing those four-bolt chairs are from Exactoscale... you don't by any chance remember their reference number do you? I'd like to order some but can't find them on the website.

 

PPS: I'm familiar with the Peco 'one-size-takes-all-wheel-standards' vee trench from 4mm days - just one of the reasons I'm now cheerfully grappling my way along the greasy pole that is hand-built turnout construction.

[dikitriki]

They are bridge chairs - 7CH201A

 

 

[David Siddall]

They are bridge chairs - 7CH201A

 

Thank you! No more hacking up slide chairs to make pale representations now I know I can get these from Exactoscale :-)

 

David

[Debs.]

I think I`ll machine up a set of roller-gauges at 31.5mm. with x 1.5mm. flangeways.

The flangeways and crossings really do look so much closer to being prototypical!

 

One of the main reasons I went 0 (Fine) and not S7, was so that I might entertain visiting rail-tours of friend`s gauge '0' stock and locos; it seems much more agreeable to be able to have fellow modellers come-bye to run....but, if there is indeed backwards compatibility from 31.5mm. to 32mm -'0', then 'losing is clearly a gain' (if you know what I mean!)

[dikitriki]

Yep

 

 

While I could have done this on the lathe, I wanted to guarantee accuracy so went to a local precision engineering company who CNC machined them.

 

Debs

 

I went 31.5 so all my mates could come and play, despite my own inclination being towards S7. A decision I have not regretted. There is very good backward compatibility. There is no problem with wheelsets from Slaters, PECO, Easybuild, Gibson, recent Heljan, Heywood. There are issues with Cast iron wheels from Allan Harris, Walsall, and the early Heljan (47 and Hymek for sure).

 

Richard

[dikitriki]

San Cheng/Tower Brass/ Bachmann RTR are also fine.

[dikitriki]

Last hijack

 

A final pic of 31.5 pointwork giving some idea of the tightened clearances.

 

 

Happy building

 

Richard

[David Siddall]

Last hijack

 

A final pic of 31.5 pointwork giving some idea of the tightened clearances.

 

 

Happy building

 

Richard

Hardly a hijack Richard, more a most welcome contribution with superb pictures for the benefit of the 'hard-of-understanding' (like, errr, me ;-)

 

Inspirational and informative, if just a little daunting. Thanks again...

 

D

 

PS: I don't own a lathe, indeed the last time I used one (nearly 40 years ago at school) I was banned from ever doing so again... so does anyone know if you can 'buy' 31.5mm track gauges, and if so from whom? (OK... the lathe ban was only partly to do with a chuck key which achieved escape velocity and punched its way to freedom through a metalwork shop skylight, ...it was more to do with what I said to the metalwork teacher following the monumental ********** I got as a result - asterisks denote extended, high-volume, verbal disciplinary (beginning with the letter 'b' and ending with 'ing' ;-)