MikuMatt81

On 26/04/2024 at 19:50, Harlequin said:

You are taking a commendably pragmatic approach.

 

I have two thoughts for you:

1. It is possible to build a roundy round in 8 by 4 using streamline track. That would probably mean starting again from scratch so you might not be ready to do that yet.

2. You must have some space around your 8 by 4 to move around it and reach everything. What if you used that space for a layout and some of space currently occupied by the 8 by 4 for an operating well? That would also mean starting again but with much more room devoted to the layout so it changes the equation! (To be clear, a bigger railway in the same space.)

 

Hi Phil,

   Thankyou very much for your message, its good to know what is possible in the space. It'd be unlikely id tear up my existing layout anytime soon however, as ive put a serious amount of time into the scenics, and I am generally very content with what i have..

That said, if some extra space becomes available later down the line I will likely do a scenic type enclosed end to end layout with lighting - not sure what you call them. now.

I actually have some Peco Bullhead points and track in stock somewhere for when that day comes.

regards,

Matthew

Hi everyone,

     So I hand-drew a template yesterday, I used my artists light-tracer so I could draw the rail on one piece of paper, and the sleepers on another. Thus allowing me to fine tune the sleeper arrangment if needs be without having to re-draw the entire thing.

Please remember this isnt (obviously)  intended to be prototypical in any way, just a finer looking point with code 75 BH rail, and 6mm sleeper spacing.

I slightly elongated the blade rails, and I would have liked to move the tie bar further down, but it has to be used in conjunction with existing point motors and theres no way in hell im taking them out again lol! 😁

Now I was wondering as to the possibility if I could use the DCC concepts pre-etched sleepers instead of standard copper clad in order to avoid having to cut and fill pcb.

Of course I understand they are intended for real world points, but there looks like a wide range of soilder pad spacings on the pre-etched sleepers to complete the project?

And finally what thickness of sleepers would I need to line up height with Peco BH please?  would spacers between the rail and sleepers be feasable for a first timer like me?

thanks!

16 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I would be very tempted to leave the current layout, basically as it is.

 

When you are ready, start a brand new layout incorporating many new features, such as better looking points. It can be built over a period of time, with the old one still being available to use as required.

To be honest, the work required to change the existing points, is a fair amount of work - but of course, that's entirely up to you.

As much as Id like to do a second layout later down the line,  Im likely never going to have any more space than where I have my current layout in right now.

Indeed space is at a premium for many, and I feel very lucky to have the layout I have, as not too long ago I didnt think Id have anything at all.

Any  track replacment work would be done slowly in piecemeal manner, section by section. I have a Dremmel set and all essential the tools, and I feel its something I could acheive.

21 hours ago, brossard said:

 

How many motors are we talking about?  Seems to me if you got new SEEPs with the integral contacts, the cost would be a wash and you wouldn't need to find fresh real estate.

 

John

I have about 12 turnouts in total, however only two of those are in a "nightmare to remove" position, so I could use the GM500 unit just for those two, and easily replace the others.

*******

Moving on, I have had so many wonderful replies to my original post, that its almost been a tad overwhelming, and I've struggled to reply to every individual who took the time to try and help.

I have read ALL your posts very carefully, and taken on all your advice with much consideration, so thankyou all.

Moving foward my plan of action is:-

To draw up the template over the weekend, I will share it here for you all to eyeball before I go ahead and order the parts.

I plan to embrace the live frog build, and should I go ahead with replacing old points,  I would use something like the G500 unit to deal with polarity switching due to my not wanting to remove any existing point motors from underneath the baseboard.

I think its worth building at least one point as a skill building exercise, on a testboard first, even if I never went ahead with a full replacment on the actual layout.

I am *very* interested in the hobby, and I refuse to let the amount of space I have available stop me learning and trying out new things!!

11 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

I'd certainly see it that way, as I don't see how you're going to hand make the nose of the common crossing.  With handmade track, the normal process is to file both rails so that you end up with an all metal 'frog'.  For an Insulfrog style design you either need a way to create a plastic frog (eg injection moulding) or you end up with a very small all metal frog, isolated from the diverging tracks, which would be difficult to support, but might be doable.  The high diverging angle of Set Track would make it easier to get a short frog than with more scale track.

Ok thanks, i will have to find a way to make live frogs work in that case :)

27 minutes ago, brossard said:

 

The GMC-PM2 is the basic SEEP.  There is a version with two sets of contacts.  There is a polarity switching relay:

 

https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/gaugemaster-gm500.html

 

but, to me, that is pretty expensive if you have a lot of motors. 

 

If you do plan to do some under board wiring, I hope for your sake that you can tip the layout on it's side.  As I said in another thread, trying to wire a layout while lying on your back is a level of Hell that Dante didn't mention in his Inferno.

 

John

That GM500 unit looks interesting, so I can hook up my existing GMC-PM2 motor to the GM500, and have it manage polarity switching for me, is that correct?

If so id happily buy a bunch of these if meant I could use my existing PM2 motors.

49 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I'd be inclined to build them with live frogs and switch the crossing polarity.

 

The problem with any sort of insulfrog arrangement is that you end up with a very small, vulnerable crossing nose. Peco insulfrogs make the crossing nose part of the plastic base moulding. Peco Unifrogs use the moulded plastic base to support the crossing nose over its entire length. You will struggle to get this level of support with hand built track, not without having a very long insulated section.

The problem I have is that I already have very basic Gaugemaster GMC-PM2 point motors fitted, which of course  dont support polarity switching. 

I could of course easily buy new point motors, but everything is already such a tight fit under my highly compressed layout, (with Dapol signal motors and all sorts of everything in the way of the point motors),  id struggle to even get the old motors out and replaced.

If you really feel live frogs are the only way to go, very sadly id have to can the project before it gets started 😢

25 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Then again Hornby have yet to notice how even their best models have the shine taken off them when advertised standing on their own dreadful set track.

 

Here's someone who has done the very thing you propose.

https://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=57802&hilit=copperclad+set+track+points

I too have noticed that Hornby use their Set track in all their marketing stuff, and I actually think the Peco set track looks quite a bit better than Hornbys, especially when carefully weathered down.

Thanks for the link, really interesting to see!

20 minutes ago, RichardT said:

Oh b*gger. Sorry @MikuMatt81.  They definitely did used to do printed Setrack point templates.  (EDIT Just checked and they *do* templates for 9mm gauge Setrack points but not 16.5mm. How odd.)

 

Mind you, all they consisted of were an overhead photo of a point. So just photocopy or scan a Setrack point at 100% to make a DIY template? Voila - that’ll sock it to The Man!

 

RichardT

Well look, I emailed Peco and they let me have the attached image (from a brochure I belive), not exactly a template per say, but they must think it OK for the intended purpose as I told them what I wanted to do.

It'll be tricky printing it out to the right size though, I am told the straight section is 168mm long so thats something to go on.

My next question for the community is, assuming copper clad sleepers throughout, and an un-powered frog like on the original ST point, where exactly will I need to make incisions throughout the point to avoid shorting?

Also I assume the tie bar will the tie bar need a spring of some kind?

thanks!

9 minutes ago, lapford34102 said:

Hi,

I've made bullhead code 75 "copies" of Peco small radius point using copperclad sleepering. Downloaded the Peco template and and re-drew the sleeper spacing to match the code 75 bullhead. It is a bit more involved than that but essentially that's it.

 

 

 

Hi Stu,

  Wow thats pretty much what I had in mind! May I ask where you downloaded the Peco template please?

Also what is the process with regards to isolation on these? I just need mine to function like an insulfrog (as all my locos have Stay-alives fitted), but look similar to the Peco Bullhead  Unifrog design.. im guessing its about cutting in specific places?

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

You can in theory recreate the geometry of Setrack points with (for example) copperclads and Code 75 rail. However, the geometry of Setrack points is so compromised compared to even the smallest pair of points on the real thing that it begins to look silly, almost like a scaled up version of 009 Crazy-Track. 

 

It's notable that Peco hasn't announced any intention to go below Streamline medium radius with the Code 75 Bullhead, even the BH medium radius points are pushing it a bit.  Setrack points are even smaller than small radius Streamline points of course. You can do it but it looks odd. 

Hello there,

    I hear what you're saying about it potentially looking odd, I can definately understand where you coming from, but I think it would be a fun exercise to try out if nothing else. 😄

1 hour ago, RichardT said:

It probably is possible. Why not just have a go? It’ll only cost you a small amount in materials and time, and it’ll be a useful skill to develop. Then tell the forum how you got on.

 

Good luck

 

RichardT

Hi Richard,

   I would very much like to go ahead and try it out, there are two things i need to clarify in my head first.

1. I would obviously need a template to work from, could this be put together in something like Templot (which I obviously have no experience of yet) ? or perhaps I could simply base the build off a template of the Peco set track point? (im not sure if Peco might have one handy?).

2. I would need to know what parts to buy, perhaps there is a suitible kit I could butcher?

regards,

Hi everyone,

   So im two years into building my first layout, and in many ways im still new to the hobby so please forgive me if I ask a "stupid" question here... 😀

When I started my journey I didnt know the difference between code 100 and code 75, insulfrog and electrofrog, or much of anything really.

Two years on and I feel ive learnt a lot, and I have taken a particular interest in modelling scenics, especially trees, foliage, flora, static grass etc, and I am really proud of what I have acehived so far.

Now I have packed a LOT on a small 8 x 4 layout (because its all the space I have in the world), and as a result,  track wise I am stuck within the geometry of Peco's set track, which is OK and its served me well, allowing me to focus on modelling my diorama's which is where most of the fun is for me.

I mostly use my layout for taking snaps, and I feel the cod 100 insulfrog points whilst OK, obviously are'nt ideal for photography, especially given how finely ive modelled many of the other scenic elements around them.

In an ideal world, I would like to slowly replace the main track with Peco or C&L Code 75 (OO gauge) bullhead track, but I know given the tight constraints of my layout, Im stuck within the geomtry of those 1st radius insultfrog points.

Now Im sure this idea I have in my head is pie in the sky, but would it be at all feasable to hand build a sort of "faux bullhead" style code 75 point using say parts from a C&L kit? obviously it wont be prototypical geometry, but it really doesnt have to be... I just want something that looks a bit finer with the correct sleeper spacing, and nothing more.

So is there any hope here for something better? or have I finally lost the plot? 😂

2 hours ago, Danemouth said:

Look on page 57 of the manual Loco Refresh needs to be set to 0 otherwise when the loco is selected all functions are set off

 

Page 58 shows how to set the recall stack to 6

 

Also using the momentum button on sound chipped locos can cause problems - there is more info on here somewhere.

 

Finally the option key needs to be remapped to address function numbers above 9 - see page 19 - the value needs to be reset to 122

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Hi Dave,

  Thanks for the tips, I will have a go at setting all these in the morning, and let everyone know how I got on 😁

Also thankyou to each and everyone of you who replied, everyone’s been so helpful it is much appreciated. 

Hi everyone,

   So I’ve been using my trusty old Hornby Select for the last couple of years, and today I “upgraded “ to my new NCE powercab starter set.

Now with the Hornby Select, as soon as I powered on at the wall, all four of my loco’s sat on the track would spring to life and the sound would automatically initiate - great.

To my surprise when I turned on the PowerCab for the first time, sound did not automatically come on for any of my locos.

I thought well that’s ok, I will turn the sound on my first loco using the function 1 key, but as soon as I select another loco, the sound on the first loco cuts out!! 
 

Then If I set the sound to on for the second Loco, that too cuts out as soon as I go back to the first etc

What gives here please? Why is the sound not persisting between loco selection? Please don’t tell me this is a limitation of the NCE unit?

Because for all it’s faults the budget Hornby controller even manages to retain sound settings after you turn it off.

any help much appreciated!

On 20/02/2024 at 00:53, DCB said:

My outside layout is the same except my sleepers disintegrate and I am always sliding new ones on, I clean mine with Peco track rubbers.     I did have some steel track outside  (Carriage sidings)  which went a very realistic rust colour and then crumbled to dust.

That is very interesting also, because in the two years my layout has been in the summer house, I too have had an issue with the sleepers going bad.

I think being in a summer house / shed its akin to an outside layout, because although fully protected from the rain, the moisture in the atmosphere makes things damp overnight. and of course when its hot everything bakes.

On 19/02/2024 at 22:47, ColinK said:

The rails on my garden railway went just like those on the original photo, looks rather realistic.

 

When I moved the track indoors following a house move, I removed the crud with HP sauce - yes, really, and it worked.

That is very interesting, I have a sneaking suspicion the damp atmospehre is a big factor in creating a natural weathering effect..... oh and LOL at the Hp sauce! XD

52 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Anything holding the least moisture, such as grease or lube, will attract ambient crud until it dries out absolutely, and the least uneven surface, even microscopically so, will as well.  Not so much attract as hang on to any crud particles that happen to be passing by, which is how the crud builds up.  So long as your railheads, especially where the wheel profile contacts, so the tops and the inside top radius of the rail xsection, are kept clean, this will not affect running and can be regarded as natural weathering. 

 

But it does suggest that there is a higher amount of ambient greasy stuff about on your layout than there is on mine, where the rail sides on track in the fiddle yard are still a bit shiny after seven years in place; track on the scenic area is side-painted rail colour.  This may be an ambient environmental factor, with grease in aerosol form being the culprit; is your layout in a garage or similar location, perhaps, or anywhere in the vicinity of a kitchen?  Or even downwind of an oil refinery.

 

Hi Johnster,

My layout is at the end of the garden, in the summer house (a glorified shed then!), so no grease or aerosol in the air that I know off.

Because of this location, it is cold and damp in the winter time, and hot and dry in the summer time.... this rightly or wrongly led me to belive it might be a kind of oxidation that was going on with what I assume is nickel silver track.

I should note that Ive spent so much time doing modelling over the last couple of years, that I very rarely get to actually run my locos for more than 5-10 mins a month, so its not like the track has had any heavy usage to date.

I certianly think the crud theory holds weight, but im still not entirely convinced due to the lack of running sessions taking place.

6 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi,

I would say it is just naturally accumulated dirt and grease from running and time. Leave it and it will end up the same as the rest of your track. 

Hi, thanks for your reply. Do you think any residue scenic cement plays a role in attracting the grime?

Hi Everyone,

   Please see the attached photos, the track on far left approx 2 years old, and the shiny track on the right a couple of months.

The old track has *never* been painted, simply ballasted and left. And yet it has a pleasing and dare I say natural non-reflective look to the sides of the rails.

When I went to paint a new section of track, I found I didnt personally like it anywhere near as much as the naturally aged track shown in the photos, which also pleasingly looks lower in profile when viewed in persion.

So my question for the experts is, what exactly causes this phenomina? Is it natural oxidisation of some kind? or is it to do with residue scenic glue collecting dust etc from the atmosphere? or perhaps something totally different?

I would love to know as id like my shiny new pieces of track to have the same look.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts :)

Thankyou very much to everyone who replied - I really did learn something from you all!

The general  consensus is that the sleepers/timbers are indeed thicker on real life points, which makes sense.

So my follow up question is then, what is the difference construction wise between  regular sleepers, and "timbers" on the points? Are plain track sleepers not made of timber also??

Hi everyone,

I purchased a yard of Peco sl-108f bullhead track, and an Peco sl-u1196 left hand turnout from Hattons ahead of a new project planned for next year.

This is my first time ever handling anything from Peco's bullhead range, Im still relatively new to the hobby so please forgive my ignorance, but is it me or is there a mis-match on the sleeper width between the two products?

The first thing I noticed on taking the items out the box was that the sleepers on the yard of track looks noticeably skinnier than the chunkier sleepers on the turnout? I cant have been the only one to notice this surley, or does the real thing have different sized sleepers on the points as well?

Please note I am not talking about sleeper spacing, rather the width of the actual sleepers themselves!

Thanks so much for your input, maybe I am being too cricitcal here....

28 minutes ago, Dave John said:

I think a diamond one would try to burn its way through, a good quality hole saw would cut. 

 

A burr is this sort of thing;

 

 

Search burr for minidrill, loads available, very useful for modelmaking.

Ahhh i see,  I will get myself a few burrs then.

Do you know of any hole saws that dont have a pilot drill bit in the center?

5 minutes ago, Dave John said:

The issue with hole saws without a pilot drill is getting them started without them skittering about all over the place.

 

I found a way round this is to get a bit of 12 mm  scrap ply about 3 inch square and use the hole saw with pilot drill to make a hole in it. Drill through the baseboard from above , say 1mm next to the centreline of the point tie bar. The bit of scrap ply can then be screwed to the bottom of the baseboard offset a bit so it is centred on the tie bar. This will act as a guide for the holesaw which can be then used without its centre drill. 

 

Just take things carefully and slowly. The guide can be unscrewed when you are nearly through the baseboard, the last bit being removed carefully with a burr in a minidrill. 

 

Good luck. 

 

 

 

 I love the idea of the plywood guide - I will definitely make one and use it!

And do you think the diamond hole saw would work ok on the wooden baseboard, or would it be better to try something else?

btw what is a burr please?

1 hour ago, teaky said:

It would be possible to drill a very small hole from above using the hole in the tie bar as a guide but this would need to be done very carefully in order to keep the drill vertical and not snap it.  You could then use the hole to centre a larger drill from below, taking care not to drill too far up, i.e. just break through the surface.  It would be best to temporarily hold the tie bar in the centre of the track when drilling from abaove or allow for it being off centre when drilling from below.

 

A variation on the above would be two holes, one either side of the tie bar, then mark the centre point below before drilling.

 

Have you considered operating the points from the side with the point motors mounted above or below the baseboard?  There are surface mounted point motors and adapters available from a number of manufacturers.

 

I would prefer not to use a surface mounted one as I dont look the look of them, and also I have a bunch of Gaugemaster PM2's already in my toolbox read to be used :)

57 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

For drilling up from below, a drill depth stop would help.  You might need to stop a little below the surface and then try and weaken the remains by hand.

Paul.

I quite like this idea!!  I was also wondering about using a Diamond hole saw intended for tiles etc, as it wouldnt have a pilot drill bit in the centre to worry about.....