Lets make those turnout kits we all have 4 mm & 7 mm

[Kenton]

 

Gordon Bennett! If experts like yourself are having problems, think of the mess someone like me would make. Is it any wonder that people are after decent ready to lay s&c work?

First up - I'm no expert here with track construction and as much a novice as yourself - probably more so. I come to this with only the ability to solder without fear - this is an adventure for me but one without consequence ... I could throw it away at any time, though am enjoying it so far.

 

Grovenor, thanks for the input. I agree with some of the first part of your post. The joggle, I assure you is there facing the switch rail - though I agree it is not particularly significant. With that lovely thing hindsight perhaps a bigger joggle would have been a good move. My feeble excuse is I didn't realise at the time and take this as it is - a kit. The switch blade is pretty sharp and if the joggle were better defined it would be well hidden. I don't really see this as an issue though.

 

On the second part of your post, the description on the construction is at odds with the kit "instructions" It is the lower point rail that is out of kilter (there is a perceptible bend as seen on your red lines). This bend is due to the incorrect reference taken on the upper stock rail which itself is out - it bends in too early. (the roller gauge could not be used across from the 'V' and I am afraid I did not check with the vernier only with the straight edge (which also is pretty useless here as it has no other reference than the opposite 'V' and flaps about.

 

As I said I will go back to the original "instructions" for construction order - with minor adjustments and using the vernier to measure the distances starting with that one from the tip of the 'V' to the top stock rail. I do not intend to undo everything back to the 'V' when the gauge between the bottom bent stock rail is spot on with the 'V'.

 

I have a metal flange way gauge - it has been used everywhere - see earlier post on how it was creating 1.9mm flange ways. I accept it may be too thick, it is what I have. It is the roller gauge that is impractical, though I can see it would have more to work on in a normal point. I don't see John's suggestion at filing a flat is practical - given my workshop skills/tool - though accept that design would be more useful.

 

The photo can be a little misleading as perspective makes some rails appear to be further off plan than they are, even the roller doesn't look as if it is on track -it is, and that bottom rail is directly above the plan.

[hayfield]

Gordon Bennett! If experts like yourself are having problems, think of the mess someone like me would make. Is it any wonder that people are after decent ready to lay s&c work?

 

 

Budgie

 

Kenton is starting with a bit of a challenging crossing and making it even more complicated by elevating it by 1 mm, but you will see that he will rise to the challenge and sort it out 

[hayfield]

Kenton

 

Either in this thread or on another Martin Wynn explained about 7 mm switch blades and the need to champer the tips (the real blades are cut into the stock rail), anyway it works very well.

 

I can't find the post about switch blades, must have been on someone else's thread. Martin explained to file a 45 degree champher at the start of the tip of the switch blade and flare it out through the length of the plane. Works very well and looks as good

[Kenton]

 

Kentom

 

Either in this thread or on another Martin Wynn explained about 7 mm switch blades and the need to chamfer the tips (the real blades are cut into the stock rail), anyway it works very well

That is understood and I was in agreement with Grovenor about the joggle being inadequate (not, not there at all) without completely dismantling the whole thing (I have no intention of doing that - this is an exercise after all) I am leaving the chamfered blade as it is for now. If it proves to be in problem that should be achievable in-situ. Running some stock over it will be the test and the wheelsets are forgiving.

[buffalo]

That is understood and I was in agreement with Grovenor about the joggle being inadequate (not, not there at all)...

 

As I understood it, Keith's point about the joggle was that it was the wrong way round. The recess into which the planed tip of the switch rail should sit is on the outside of the rail:

 

 

You'll need to remove the rail, curve it the other way and put it back the other way around. Without doing this, the reversed joggle will well and truly screw up the gauging.

 

Nick

[Grovenor]

Grovenor, thanks for the input. I agree with some of the first part of your post. The joggle, I assure you is there facing the switch rail - though I agree it is not particularly significant.

The joggle is there, but back to front, perhaps Buffalo's picture shows it more clearly. It does need to be fixed.

With that lovely thing hindsight perhaps a bigger joggle would have been a good move.

No, the size is Ok just needs to be the correct way round.

The switch blade is pretty sharp and if the joggle were better defined it would be well hidden.

pretty sharp maybe, but not sharp enough and you can't hide it with the joggle back to front.

I don't really see this as an issue though.

You should! You are right that the blade can be filed down to a better profile in situ, but only after the joggle is fixed.

 

On the second part of your post, the description on the construction is at odds with the kit "instructions"

So what, the problems are not in the instructions, they are in the 'as built' work, and will need to be corrected.

It is the lower point rail that is out of kilter (there is a perceptible bend as seen on your red lines).

Indeed there is a bend, its actually due to your overwidth flangeway, where the bend is there should be a joggle, see the kit drawing.

This bend is due to the incorrect reference taken on the upper stock rail which itself is out - it bends in too early.

the curved stockrail has ists problems with the wrong joggle and lack of a proper bend as already discussed, you should be setting that curved stockrail from the vee and wing rails, not vice versa.

 

As I said I will go back to the original "instructions" for construction order - with minor adjustments and using the vernier to measure the distances starting with that one from the tip of the 'V' to the top stock rail. I do not intend to undo everything back to the 'V' when the gauge between the bottom bent stock rail is spot on with the 'V'.

If you are happy that the vee is correctly aligned and placed, then sure, reference everything from there. I have moved the red lines on this pic to show how far the wing rails are from the correct alignment with the vee.

 

I have a metal flange way gauge - it has been used everywhere - see earlier post on how it was creating 1.9mm flange ways. I accept it may be too thick, it is what I have.

well it is obvious that the kit was not designed for such wide flangeways, an incorrect gauge is worse than no gauge at all, throw it away. All the alignment problems with the wing rails can be traced to that gauge, look at the pic. Trying to keep the wing rail knuckle bends at the place shown on the drawing with the wide flangeways makes alignment impossible. To achieve alignment with a wide flangeway the knuckle bends have to move further away from the crossing nose, quite a lot further in your case, which in turn requires the joints to move and hence the point blade tips to move, all of which can be avoided by closing in the flangeways to the correct figure. If you can't find a suitable spacer amongst your bits and pieces the shank of a drill can be used.

It is the roller gauge that is impractical, though I can see it would have more to work on in a normal point. I don't see John's suggestion at filing a flat is practical - given my workshop skills/tool - though accept that design would be more useful.

A roller gauge with no flat is pretty much useless around the crossing area on any sort of point, all it needs is a reasonably big file.

 

The photo can be a little misleading as perspective makes some rails appear to be further off plan than they are, even the roller doesn't look as if it is on track -it is, and that bottom rail is directly above the plan.

Sure but the photo does show up the joggle and vee alignment issues very clearly. keep on enjoying it, I'm sure you will be even better pleased when you get it right.

Regards

Keith

[hayfield]

This is a nice bit of kit which makes building common crossings a lot easier in P4

]

 

First you can do one side, then fit it to the other side to solder up the other rail

 

 

Pity its not available in other gauges but certainly makes life much easier when building in copperclad and a bit easier for free standing common crossings

[hayfield]

Another good use is for srtting the stock rail at the end of the switch rails planing

 

 

 

just attach to a length of rail, then position the end of the rail where the planing stops. You could use a roller gauge with a flat at one end

 

[Grovenor]

This is a nice bit of kit which makes building common crossings a lot easier in P4

Certainly looks interesting, maybe you should tell us where it comes from?

Doesn't look to hard to make up for whatever gauge you want.

Keith

[hayfield]

Keith

 

Sorry should have given more detail. Its called a Block gauge with crossing alignment aid by D D Wheelwrights  (info@wheelwrights.com). As I said great pity its not done in EM and OO gauges. Think I got it from the EM Gauge Society Stand at Stoke Manderville last Autumn

[Redgauntlet1946]

Keith

 

As I said great pity its not done in EM and OO gauges. Think I got it from the EM Gauge Society Stand at Stoke Manderville last Autumn

Hi,

It is available from EMGS Stores in EM "EM Block Gauge & Alignment Aid"

 

(If you are a member - It costs about £15.00 tho)

 

Ian

[hayfield]

Looks like I will be able to pick one up later in the year at Railex  Expo. I can really recommend them

[Kenton]

Previously

 

OK. I'm back. Thanks for the input everyone. BUT ...

The kit did come with one gauge to set the flange ways. It has resulted in a gap of 1.90mm which seems quite wide to me ...

From the little I know the gap should be 1.75 mm on 32 mm track gauge

well it is obvious that the kit was not designed for such wide flange ways, an incorrect gauge is worse than no gauge at all, throw it away. All the alignment problems with the wing rails can be traced to that gauge

Oh yes - in the bin! All the problems traced back to that one. Of course I do not know if it was the original one as supplied with the kit or a substitute. (The kit was not new and complete as the other gauge was missing, 2 sets of instructions...) I just knew 1.9mm looked too big.

 

Firstly the joggle: in reality, I cannot speak for the photos but the rail has the joggle facing the switch. So I have refused to remove the curved stock rail and bend it the other way. The blue line on buffalo's image is well beyond where the joggle should be and as I said it is very slight.

 

 

The instructions with the kit are very clear - "start building from the straight rails of the bent stock (outside wing rail) rail and gauge the 'V's on that". If you remember the 'V's were positioned first then the outer stock rail gauged on that. This was a big mistake.

 

I've subsequently found that one of the 'V's (the left one) was initially positioned incorrectly. This has thrown everything out, the bent stock rail - the point rails and the K crossings. using the same 'V' as the straight edge for the upper curved stock rail also threw that one out. Add to that all the oversize flange ways - particularly in the K crossings have been the down fall.

 

I have come to realise that a slip is nothing like a point.

 

Also that a good set of gauges are required and I can now see why so many folk use those triangular ones.

 

Follow the plan and follow the instructions.

 

So:

a] I removed all the wing rails, and point rails.

b] I adjusted the RH end of the stock rails so they were "on plan". ensuring the bent stock rail was also straight either side of the bend.

c] I gauged in the LH 'V' with a vernier at both the point and rail. The RH 'V' did not require adjustment. The other side of each 'V' was checked against the curved stock rail (which was now on plan) and did not require any further adjustment.

- There was a problem here as when adjusting the LH 'V' it became unsoldered. Putting it back together has not been a perfect job, though as we will see it didn't matter too much.

d] the point rails were then replaced with a much reduced flangeway and ensuring that they were "on plan" their gauge were also checked - no further alteration required.

e] the middle check rails were pushed inwards to give the new narrower flangeway.

f] finally the wing rails were positioned to form the two crossings. Once again this was the most difficult task. Close examination showed them to be all different! On shorter and one longer than the other two. None of the bends appeared to match. Now the differences were only small but didn't help when trying to position - heating the rail would unsolder the previous join.

 

 

Looks a real mess I know and I accept it could look much better. But the gravity driven, rolling wheelset seems to trundle through without any big bump and without falling into any holes.

 

I know it wouldn't satisfy the perfectionists and there is still more to do but I am actually much happier with it today than on Friday.

 

The remaining check rails and long switch rail yet to do along with all those chairs to cut up. At least progress is forward again.

[hayfield]

Kenton

 

Looks good to me, the copperclad will soon clean up. I am building a single slip at the moment and even though I have built several before I could not get the bent stock rail to stay in place (ply and chair construction) I made a new one and it fitted  and stayed in place first time. Now to make the crossing rails.

 

For those who work in OO-sf gauge the information that the DD Wheelrights block and flange way gauge will come as good news  as if you build the common crossings as separate units with a simple little jig it can be used to set the wing rail gap ( not for the track gauge). As I said on my shopping list

[37114]

Excellent thread, I have only managed the time to read page 1 this morning, but will follow up on the rest. I have 3 C&L points on order so will absorb the content on this thread before cracking on, thanks all for sharing the knowledge!

[Grovenor]

Well, whatever you did or didn't do to your stock rail it certainly now looks much better, the wrong joggle has vanished to be replaced by a bend in the correct place. The crossings also look greatly improved so well done. If you are up to it I would suggest just tweaking the upper wing rail in your pic, which is slightly misaligned with the point rail, make it match up with the lower one which is spot on. Then you'll be good to go and the next one will be easier.

Regards

Keith

[Kenton]

Thanks, Keith. Notice how different the two wing rails are in shape! They were like that from the start. Even looking back at the previous build. If I move it up slightly to better align with the point rail then the flangeway will close up. I guess it really needs to be removed, bent a little sharper and then replaced - but TBH I've not the inclination for that sort of perfection ... remembering that wheelsets seem happy enough and, as yet, the project has no home in any current track plan.

 

Of course, these wing rails do not exist outside the world of slips so for building simple points they are a problem created by my selection of "first" project. As you say the next one will be easier - not just building with experience but I will have obtained the correct gauges to start with.

[hayfield]

Kenton

 

Most times turnouts go together like clockwork, every now and then an error creeps in and quite often I can't see the wood for the trees (tiredness is normally the problem for the error and the inability to resolve it). However the next day all seems quite clear and straightforward to resolve.

[Kenton]

Previously

 

Fair wind today and nearly in safe harbour.

 

The check rails went in very easily - just follow the plan - and check the flangeway.

One small problem, the LH upper wing rail was poorly lined up - even worse than the RH one. So it required removal and replacement. This was the long one of the four perhaps I should have cut it back - anyway replacement done and the flangeway checked again.

 

Finally the last rail - the long check rail was soldered to the middle 3 sleepers. The LH side fits nicely in the point rail joggle but the RH chamfered tip sits slightly proud of its point rail. I am hoping that when attached to the tie bar it will be pulled down ...

 

Now, quick questions and a poor image to go with it. Is this the correct way round for the two halves of the chair? Very difficult to see but they are different - the smaller half to the inside?

and, which rails get them?

 

I'll try to replace that with a more in-focus shot tomorrow. Done

[Grovenor]

Thanks, Keith. Notice how different the two wing rails are in shape! They were like that from the start. If I move it up slightly to better align with the point rail then the flangeway will close up. I guess it really needs to be removed, bent a little sharper and then replaced -

Yes, that is what I had in mind, the knuckle bend should always match the angle of the vee and the two wing rails be mirror images, always best to adjust the bends before starting assembly, if the kit maker can't make the bends consistently then the need to check should be in the instructions.

Of course, these wing rails do not exist outside the world of slips so for building simple points they are a problem created by my selection of "first" project.

Wing rails for normal points have exactly the same requirements, the only difference is the part the wheels actually run on can be one or two chairs longer so they are a bit easier to align.

 

Is this the correct way round for the two halves of the chair? Very difficult to see but they are different - the smaller half to the inside?

Yes, the half with the key on the outside, the smaller half on the inside where it clears the flanges.

and, which rails get them?

Well pretty much every rail at some place or other, its more a matter of which timbers and then different for every rail, and do you have the other special chairs for where you need different ones?

C&L sell templates, including single slips, that show every chair in detail, they were a joint effort with Exactoscale and the Scalefour Society and can be downloaded if you are a member, but no slips or diamonds in the downloads currently.

Regards

Keith

[Kenton]

Previously

 

Yes, the half with the key on the outside, the smaller half on the inside where it clears the flanges.

Well pretty much every rail at some place or other, its more a matter of which timbers and then different for every rail, and do you have the other special chairs for where you need different ones?

C&L sell templates, including single slips, that show every chair in detail, they were a joint effort with Exactoscale and the Scalefour Society and can be downloaded if you are a member, but no slips or diamonds in the downloads currently.

Regards

Keith

No. All I have are the ones shown [7CH101A], didn't even know that there were others and that was not obvious from the order page either. Huh more expense! Not a member of the Scalefour Society (there is a limit) so still no real idea of where they go. Who said build your own was cheaper

 

 

All the soldering is now completed with the tie bars soldered to the switch rails. Also a quick check of which sleepers were actually soldered to 2 or more rails revealed 4 that weren't. Spacers were slid under both stock rails on these sleepers and then soldered in place. A quick check with a multimeter revealed nothing untoward.

 

It should now be possible to remove from the plan and temporary workbench....

 

Only the torture of cutting up those chairs and gluing them down - don't expect that to happen very quickly - it may just drive me mad

[hayfield]

Kenton

 

Each rail will have some form or part(s) of a chair, as said the C&L plans will show standard and switch chairs, however at the common and obtuse crossings there will be special chairs where two or 3 rails will be on one chair,

 

for instance on sleeper 1 the V chair would be made up of 1 unit (block chair) inner half chair, block between rails, then inner half chair. Where as sleeper 2 will have outer half chair, block, block, block outer half chair

 

Key for abbreviations below  O outer half chair, I inner  half chair, B Block chair S slide chair

 

For example sleeper 1 will have  O,I,I,B,I,I,O

Sleeper 2 will have O, O, O, B, O, O, O

Sleepers 3 & 4   O, O, O, O, O, O

Sleeper 5 same as 2

Sleeper  6  S, O, S, I, O

Sleepers 7, 8, 9 same as 6

10 & 11 also the same but the slide chairs may have to be extended

12, O, I, O, B, O

13, 14 O, I, O, O

 

16 to 27 follow in reverse

 

You may have to trim some chairs to fit within the Obtuse Crossing, block chairs (central parts) could be made from 2 cut down halves or microstrip

 

The first few slide chairs may have to be shortened by the width of the rail

 

If I have lost you tell me

[hayfield]

Previously

 

No. All I have are the ones shown [7CH101A], didn't even know that there were others and that was not obvious from the order page either. Huh more expense! Not a member of the Scalefour Society (there is a limit) so still no real idea of where they go. Who said build your own was cheaper

 

 

All the soldering is now completed with the tie bars soldered to the switch rails. Also a quick check of which sleepers were actually soldered to 2 or more rails revealed 4 that weren't. Spacers were slid under both stock rails on these sleepers and then soldered in place. A quick check with a multimeter revealed nothing untoward.

 

It should now be possible to remove from the plan and temporary workbench....

 

Only the torture of cutting up those chairs and gluing them down - don't expect that to happen very quickly - it may just drive me mad

Kenton

 

If you are going to build more turnouts then slide chairs will be needed, I bought Exactoscale ones (they are newer mouldings) 7CH 301A and are sold in packs of 100, a normal turnout uses between 12 & 16 where as a slip about 24. They also sell bridge chairs, also in packs of 100, but most just cut standard chairs to fit

 

Go to this link http://www.finescale.org.uk/pdfs/1-7%20Diamond%20&%20Slips.pdf on the C&L site, its for the Exactoscale 4 mm special chairs for diamonds and slips this may give you an idea this link is for the common crossings http://www.finescale.org.uk/pdfs/Common%20Crossings.pdf

 

On the old site of Exactoscale you could download the Exactoscale plans for their turnouts and crossings which are very helpfull.

 

Kenton if you are struggling PM me

[hayfield]

Kenton

I don't know if this helps I am building a single slip in 4 mm scale

 

I am using standard chairs and will chop them up where required. Once I have laid some switch chairs I will take another photo

[hayfield]

Kenton

 

These photos may help

 

 

I have started to fit some of the switch chairs

 

 

 

 

these are some of the chairs available. The C&L standard chairs are old ones and came with slide chairs.

I hav attached Exactoscale slide and bridge chairs as well as plastic fishplates