Wayne Kinney

Hi Guys, Thought I would share what I've been working on the last few days, a jig fixture to hold down the rail while they are machined into switch blades: The jig holds 16 blades so enough for 8 turnout kits (or 2 double slips). Takes 52 minutes to machine all 16. Also a small video of it in operation:

Hi Guys, Thought I would share what I've been working on the last few days, a jig fixture to hold down the rail while they are machined into switch blades: The jig holds 16 blades so enough for 8 turnout kits (or 2 double slips). Takes 52 minutes to machine all 16. Also a small video of it in operation:

Hi Keith, I am working on tweaks based in Patricks feedback. Please watch this space

Hi Martin, Thanks for the 1 to 10 list, sometimes I need that! LOL I think I was merging your separate suggestions, hence the confusion. All clear now, and a good idea indeed! I appreciate all your suggestions. At the end of the day, I definitely want to push for the least amount of assembly steps... Thanks again, mate!

Always hard to interpret comments. So your suggestion was to use the plastic strip as a temporary spacer only, and then remove it? I didn't think that was what you meant, because you said: Or you mean, keeping the plastic spacer in place there, somehow?

Hmm. I feel that is a bit exaggerated. You mentioned in an earlier thread: This comment implies that anyone with the skill to build the rest of the layout, would also have the skill to epoxy fill the gap. I would argue that leaving a 0.25mm air gap is both easier and less steps compared to either epoxy filling OR gluing 0.75mm bits of plastic card strip to rail ends. As I see it, the options were: A: Have pre printed insulation spacers as a part of the base (as previously illustrated) - issue is that to have both a small 0.25mm gap AND be unobtrusive, it would be far too thin and fragile to manufacture. B: Supply 0.25x0.75mm plastic card strip, that the user has to cut to shape, then glue on the ends of the casting rails. C: Leave a 0.25mm air gap. After reviewing all the above options, the design objective to design an Easy Build kit suitable for inexperienced track builders, in my opinion, option C was the best option. Please give me a little faith in that I have been manufacturing kits for 9 years now! I do have a little experience, right? Its really good to discuss and try options, that's the designing process and the 3D printing method means fast testing of each idea. That IS a good thing.

Thanks Martin, Yes, it's way too thin. It does print but too fragile. I believe the plastic strip would be a better route.

This is what I meant when I said I'm concerned it will be visible under the rail. Any smaller and its going to be too fragile. I've just printed this one and its already too thin. I am going to keep it as it was as its been like this for years on my N Gauge kits with zero issues.

I dunno about this....LOL

I'll run a test now of an upstand and send it to the printer, photo's to follow (the power of ultra fast prototype revisions, thanks to 3D printing). I'm concerned it will be visible under the rail.

I just meant the table that you posted, Mister Pedantic...LOL haha Thanks for the info and drawings, all very useful indeed!

The exactoscale plan also shows 2x L1 Bridge chairs where your table shows a 'D' chair...

Thanks Martin, very useful reference.

Strange, the chair layout PDF on their website only uses the Y chair on 1in8 and above... https://exactoscale.com/wp-content/uploads/web-Common-Crossings.pdf

Thanks Patrick for building up my EM Gauge 'Work in Progress' kit I'll try and answer a few questions that have been asked: I think you are right, I was following the Exactoscale chair layout: There will be no shorting out on a wheel back at that locating unless a wheel set back to back is very out of spec - at which point it would not run through the crossing V and check rails. I've done this design for years in N gauge which has fatter flanges and looser dimensional tolerances. This is a little difficult to position accurately due variations caused by the small amounts of shrinkage in the cast crossing. I recommend simply leaving an air gap. I've adopted this approach for years on my N Gauge kits. Cosmetic fishplates can then be glued on further down the switch rail at the correct position.

I have now sent the EM Gauge 'prototype' kit to Patrick, he should get this tomorrow. He will be sharing pictures of the build and running of a few loco's on his test track

Hi Martin, It was the first prototype I made which was DOGA-Fine. I believe the check span was slightly under 14.5mm which is why the Mogul runs on it 'out of the box'. It's been a few months since I sent this to Patrick, things have moved on. Just to confirm, I will not be producing DOGA-Fine, only Standard 00, 00-SF and EM Gauge.

Thanks Martin, I will do once I mill the switch blades over the next few days. But yes to both questions (set and 2 timbers).

Hi Guys, Couple of quick images. I've finished the B7 EM Gauge base and I'm pretty happy with it. I still need to mill the switch blades, as I've now changed to using the EM Gauge Societies code 75 rail, its a little wider so I need to make a new jig fixture for my CNC milling machine, which is my next job

Hi Ian, Full range? In all honesty, I don't know. I'm just concentrating on getting the B7 kits out for now. I may well be busy for the first few weeks after release, so it will be harder to find time to design the new kits in CAD. Once things settle, progress can be made. It usually only takes a day to do the CAD work for a new kit. About 2 - 3 weeks to get a new cast crossing angle produced. It may well take a good 6 - 8 months after release to get the range similar to my N Gauge range, possibly longer. I still think that's pretty good progress, though

Thanks Keith. It's fully scalable, so don't worry I'm sure there will be an initial influx of sales at the very beginning, and this will then calm down a little. I am going to be spending most of January making up kits ready for stock before release.

Wow, many replies since yesterday! I appreciate any disappointment 'Edwardian' or others like him may have. Although its physically possible to create thin sleeper versions, the issue is indeed the shear number of variations needed to keep in stock. Let's start with the first kit, a B7 turnout. As I am catering for 00 Gauge, 00-SF and EM Gauge, that's three variants to stock already. Left and right hand? Ah, make that 6 variants. Add a thin sleeper/timber version, I've now doubled that to 12 variants just for a B7 kit. Now, how many kits should I get ready and stocked before releasing...you start to understand the shear numbers needed with all these variants. Not to mention the CAD work involved for each of these versions. I've also been approached by the 3mm Scale and Protofour Scale Societies, which I am very thankful for, but will add another 4 variations for a B7..LOL I am to blame though, as I did of course say in an earlier post that I would offer thin sleeper. But this project is still developing, and so are production decisions, I'm afraid. Sorry for any disappointment. I have offered a transition piece as a solution to those that wish to use thin sleeper plain line. Although I am sure that the majority of modellers wanting to dip their toe into finescale track will most likely be choosing thick sleeper flexi track, most likely Peco Bullhead. I sympathise with your situation, but I do see the fact that you have already laid thin sleeper track as I minority situation, and one where solutions are available.

Don't worry. As martin mentions above, thin sleeper flexi track will be catered for by the height transition sections.