Jump to content
 

Wayne Kinney

Members
  • Posts

    501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wayne Kinney

  1. Hi Guys,

     

    OK, I wasn't going to post this, but his last line in this email seems to give me permission ..LOL

    I've never received an email from Andy Reichert before until my reply to his unbelievably arrogant post in this thread, yesterday. I say unbelievable until I got this email from him today:

     

    "Wayne,

     

    Attempted Order #3680, December 13, 2011 . I can't remember now if I caught that one in time.

     

    Attempted Order #7434, March 28, 2020

     

    Merely an immediate apology posted on the same RM Web topic is appropriate and will end any concern on my part.  Note I didn't make any reference to the timing of your N turnouts and 00 turnouts development cycles.

     

    Had you not intervened unasked in my reply to Martin Wynne, it would have become obvious that I was pointing out that his continual shutting out of the technology of flange support at common crossing vees as a much simpler alternative to gauge narrowing) was not universally accepted.

     

    If I don't see your apology in the next day or so, I'll assume you want me to post the corrected order details myself.

     

    Andy"

     

    Can you believe it? How jealous and desperate is he :D I don't understand it when his market is US!

     

    Seems he is bummed for getting banned from this topic. It's a shame because he does make some good products. It's just the attitude :( Makes me sad.

     

    I won't post about this anymore even if he emails me again. I understand the moderators POV on this petty arguing and I should be more professional but this email both shocked and amused me!

     

    OK, back on track, I'll get back to work now in CAD.. :D

     

    • Like 1
    • Friendly/supportive 9
  2. Thanks SO MUCH guys for your lovely comments and input on next kits! Certainly makes my decision making easier.

     

    I believe after the diamonds, double slips & A5 turnouts in all 3 gauges this month, the next kit will be the single slip followed by the 1in7 standard crossover.

    I can then look at other angles (1in6, 1in8, 1in10).

     

    It's all coming together thanks to everyone's input over the years! THANKS! :)

    • Like 13
    • Friendly/supportive 4
  3. 39 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

    For example, here's a question for Wayne:

     

    Are the new all-rail kits supplied with the vee nose ready-blunted to the prototype width (3/4" for bullhead = 0.25mm), or is the rail supplied as-machined sharp and left to the builder to blunt it? It's important because the templates assume a prototypical blunt nose, and if left sharp the nose will overlap into fresh air between the timbers. The previous cast crossings had a prototypical blunt nose, and looked all the better for it:

    Hi Martin,

     

    Yes they are a little blunt, if they were left perfectly sharp it would break through the web of the rail and leave a 'fork' shape of only the head and foot left (as I'm sure you know, but putting the info on here for others).

     

    The way the 'chairs' that clamp the V's are designed means that the Point Rail V is 'wedged' into the correct location, meaning it's not the nose of the V that determines it's end stop position, it's the 'flat' of the milled section. This guarantees correct alignment weather or not the V's were perfectly sharp or overly blunt. So yes, if I left the V perfectly sharp, it would hang out over that timber.

    • Informative/Useful 6
  4. 2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

    I asked if that inferred there was a separate "00" version of the spacer for the "00" version of your turnout kit. It seems logical there should be, if only for consistent labelling, but Martin didn't answer that.

     

    My obviously relevant ongoing question is "what gauge are you using at the throw bar (and for the turnout ends for that matter) for the "00-SF" version of your turnout kit?"

     

    Apparently (see Siberian Snooper post) the much lauded as 00-SF Gordon S layout only used 16.2 mm gauge through the common crossings. So it's not clearly defined what gauge(s) an 00-SF turnout actually is supposed to be.

     

    On 03/03/2022 at 22:56, martin_wynne said:

    EM and 00-SF switch opening = 1.75 mm min (a 20p coin can be used as a spacer).

     

    Standard 00 switch opening = 2.0mm min (a 10p coin can be used as a spacer).

     

     

    Martin already answered, yes 00 Gauge version has a 2mm spacer. 

    • Like 2
  5. 9 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

    Kitchen foil! It is my answer to any situation where I want to prevent 2 pieces of touching metal from becoming soldered together.  In particular when creating the hinged join in coupling rods.   It is very thin and being made of aluminium won’t take lead solder.  If I was about to solder the pin to a blade I would definitely place a thin strip of aluminium between and under the stock rail and the blade.

    Frank

    Yes Yes Yes! It's so true and another great method.

     

    I was in two minds as to put extra steps in the instructions, one being tin foil the other a silicone grease barrier...

     

    Both work great, but I'm also thinking that it's not going to be an issue anyway...

    • Like 3
    • Informative/Useful 1
  6. 47 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

    Hi Wayne, that seems sensible and further why not solder on the spacer side so there’s no risk of soldering to the stock rail?
    I’ve done this method with pins on pcb points for years with a simple card spacer. 

     

    Just solder on this side

    1CA69F2F-D83A-40FE-85EB-DC6257A4B77B.jpeg.2969165db9fa6b7408641050437b2a93.jpeg

    Hi Paul,

     

    A very valid question and I am glad someone asked it!

     

    It seems sensible to solder the switch blade that is NOT in contact with the stock rail, as Paul suggest, as not to risk bonding the switch blade to the stock rail. Everything else being equal, this is the method I would have put forward.

     

    There is, however, more to it than that...mostly involving accuracy. Soldering the switch blade whilst in contact with the stock rail removes many small errors that build up resulting from twisted rail from wire drawing production or CNC machining tolerances milling the switch blades.

     

    Soldering the switch blade whilst sitting flush against the stock rail overcomes previous manufacturing tolerances, especially if the top of the blade is squeezed tight to the stock rail with a pair of tweezers whilst soldering the joint!

     

    If soldered the opposite way, as Paul suggests (which does initially make sense!), you may find that the switch blade doesn't sit nicely flush with the stock rail, but with a gap at the top of the rail head.

     

    So to summarise, the method I went for results in the most accuratly set switch blade, with perfect gap on one blade, and perfectly flush against the stock rail on the other....

     

    • Like 3
    • Informative/Useful 1
    • Craftsmanship/clever 4
×
×
  • Create New...