Using the easy-assembly Finetrax pointwork kits in 00 and EM (and in P4 from the S4 Society)

[Andy Reichert]

6 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Ian,

 

That's because one particular RMweb member (Andy Reichert) cannot see any mention of 00-SF without jumping in to find fault with it. Without ever providing a better solution to the problem of mixing 00 kit wheels and unmodified RTR wheels on the same track.

 

SNIP

 

Well Ravenser's  (snipped) RM Web post below is nothing to do with me.  I'm sure I can find others if I look a little longer.

 

.Ravenser

 

Members

2.7k

Posted October 19, 2015

  On 16/10/2015 at 14:00, Ravenser said:

This goes to the heart of my concern with what you are promoting. You are stripping out clearances and working tolerances to the point where intermittent binding somewhere becomes well-nigh inevitable. The whole layout ends up on hairs-breadth clearances at best - and the moment that anything is sub-optimum , you're stuffed

 

You accept that clearances are very tight with RTR wheels - but in fact the picture is even worse, because "tight" wheelsets down to 14.3mm are quite common on RTR : most Bachmann locos will have one wheelset like that in my experience. That immediately wipes out half  the limited clearance at the check span. You are down to 0.1mm total clearance, or an average of 0.05mm each side. And you've repeatedly said that B2Bs down to 14.3mm are okay on OO-SF. These minimal clearances aren't exceptional cases - they will be commonplace - and you're expecting the whole wheel/rail interface system to work with complete reliability under such minimal clearances

 

Critically you have very restricted clearances for the RP25/110 flange through the flangeway and very restricted clearances  across the check span. It may not be possible for the wheelset to satisfy both the very narrowly defined constraints simultaneously. At  which point  something must come off. This is not a recipe for reliable running

 

There is now independent testimony from Brian Kirby that this is a real issue in practice:

 

SNIP

 

And I I object to your continually claiming that there isn't a different and 100% working solution when it has been used successfully here in the USA at least 15 years. That of course does not have any effect on minimum radius. And for that reason it appears to have been incorporated in most commercial RTR turnout products by now.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Not your fault at all and I guess most 00 gauge modellers are in the dark about it. If Wayne called them 00 Finescale and made no mention of 00sf very few modellers would take any notice unless they had problems running their stock through, using common sense and code 100 rail for older stock.

 

Lets face it they buy a modern loco for £200 and accepting it is a finescale model running on 00 gauge track, in general it will run better on 00sf than 00 (universal) simply because the wheels are finer

 

Hence my earlier post about the serious risks (to a manufacturer)  of manufacturing a product with misleading naming and usage implications.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

15 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Hi Martin,

 

Some of us, like our noses blunted to 11/16ths, at least that's what's in David Smith's book.

 

 

Yes I know you do. But you also like to skimp on the chair screws and use only 2 of them to fix your chairs.

 

But Wayne's turnout chairs have 3 or 4 chair screws, so I mentioned only the bluntiness of the noses suitable for those. (You can set any preferred bluntiness in Templot.)

 

The actual difference between 11/16" and 3/4" scales to less than 1 thou at 4mm/ft. Which some modellers will be unable to measure, and others will notice immediately as they enter the railway room.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

29 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Hence my earlier post about the serious risks (to a manufacturer)  of manufacturing a product with misleading naming and usage implications.

 

Andy

 

 

What's misleading in the pose ?

 

One of the largest track manufacturers for years claimed their track was 00/H0 ?  surely its one or the other ? 

[martin_wynne]

22 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

And I I object to your continually claiming that there isn't a different and 100% working solution when it has been used successfully here in the USA at least 15 years. That of course does not have any effect on minimum radius. And for that reason it appears to have been incorporated in most commercial RTR turnout products by now.

 

And this solution is?

 

For the umpteenth time of explaining to you, 00-SF is not intended for commercial RTR turnouts. It is for hand-built and kit-built trackwork where the builder is assumed to have some model-making skills beyond opening a box.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

1 hour ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Hi Martin,

 

Some of us, like our noses blunted to 11/16ths, at least that's what's in David Smith's book.

Seems fashionable...

 

Let's hope this defuses the situation and we can move back on topic

More to come this weekend....

Edited March 10, 2022 by Wayne Kinney
Additional side note

[martin_wynne]

11 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

So your quoting that the derailing minimum radius for a 6 coupled or longer RTR model on 00-SF is similar to that of EM wheels on EM is completely wrong.

 

I did not say that. I was referring to the same wheels when in use on 00-SF and EM, with the same 2mm difference in back-to-back and track gauge.

 

i.e. RTR wheels (RP25/110) at 16.4mm back-to-back running on EM. Many EM modellers widen RTR wheels from 14.4mm to 16.4mm B-B, rather than replace them completely on 00 RTR models.

 

Or Markits wheels at 14.5mm and 16.5mm B-B. i.e. using the standard Markits axles for 00 and EM.

 

Or Gibson wheels at 14.6mm and 16.6mm B-B.

 

Martin.

Edited March 11, 2022 by martin_wynne

[Wayne Kinney]

Also, just to make clear, I'm neither an inventor nor advocator of any of the standards. I merely make them available to those that have already chosen which standard they wish to model in.

 

Now, PLEASE back on 'track'!

 

More to come this weekend....

Edited March 10, 2022 by Wayne Kinney

[SHMD]

I like "roman noses" myself...

 

 

Kev.

[Wayne Kinney]

Just now, SHMD said:

I like "roman noses" myself...

 

 

Kev.

Hopefully more of those to come, this weekend! 

[KeithHC]

Right let’s get back to Wayne’s kits. Wayne what is your timetable for new 00/EM kits please.

 

Keith

[Wayne Kinney]

2 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

Right let’s get back to Wayne’s kits. Wayne what is your timetable for new 00/EM kits please.

 

Keith

Beeeeeeeeeepppppppp.........

[Brinkly]

1 minute ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Beeeeeeeeeepppppppp.........

I do feel for you - all I wanted to do was come on this thread and see how you were getting on. 
 

I’ve built two of your kits - fantastic service by the way. All the stock I have run through them with no issues. They look good and are incredibly good value for money. 
 

I, and I’m sure others, do not want to read pages of arguing by someone where frankly  I don’t understand what they are trying to achieve. Furthermore, I do feel certain posts are turning people off this thread, through no fault of the creator.
 

Message received. There are different standards - move on!!! I don’t care about running HO stuff on 00 Peco, Doga, Boga, froga or any other dratted standard: it’s a different different scale!!! I just want a 00 kit which works, which Wayne has produced. 
 

I’m sorry I don’t like to rant publicly but I’m really fed up with trying to wade though, what is frankly, irrelevant information on this thread.

 

Please can it stop.

 

Wayne - well done. Good product. Keep producing more bits. 
 

All the best,

 

Nick. 

[Wayne Kinney]

9 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

Wayne what is your timetable for new 00/EM kits please.

OK, back to serious...

 

I will give more details this weekend. I'm in a great position, now. January and February were taken up with converting all the N Gauge range to the new system (a shite load of CAD work!), plus fulfilling all those new N Gauge orders. In addition, some big orders from the 2mm Scale Association, 3mm Scale society and the EM Gauge Society. I was a busy bee!

 

This has now calmed down a little and I'm now set to move forward. With the changes I've made (All rail and the new tie bar design), this means I can really plough forward on new formations.

I know I've been quiet over the last few months, but I'm really happy and excited and I hope this will show in what's coming up!

[bradfordbuffer]

2 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Seems fashionable...

 

Let's hope this defuses the situation and we can move back on topic

More to come this weekend....

This sort of response to a post gets right up my nose! Boom!

 

You didn't make the wheel just somewhere for it to run! Whatever the size!

 

Some posters need to realise that your not peco...just a cottage industry.....

If my pending 3mm 14.2mm gauge points don't work I'll be back to rant about clearances and bolt holes...and you might need the services of a rhinoplasty! (Had one for medical reasons why any one would want one fir vanity?)

It's a mad world at moment let's not fall out over fractions of mm!

[BWsTrains]

Back on topic.

 

I've now completed assembly of five of the B7 Turnouts - (cast frog) and none were required to be straight. Following the very helpful input here from Dominion and Martin I've developed a routine to curve the turnouts to the various radii +ve and -ve which works very well for me.

 

Firstly, I calculated how much reduction was required in the webbing on the side being shortened, it works out at a modest <=0.1mm per gap over the curving range even for the biggest deflection I require.

 

I created a jig to hold the switch end static and with the Templot printout of the Control in situ, set about cutting. For gentle curves (radius 6000+mm) I found I needed only 5 cuts in each of the relevant webbing strips. In this configuration the deflection from straight is only 6mm at the end.  For tighter curves I found it best to cut most of them thru to balance the curving.

 

The short side I make a careful second cut to slice as thin a sliver as I can out of the webbing so the gap will be narrow to glue one curved.

 

Then as shown below, I tape down the edges of the sleepers and use either standard CA or thickened CA depending on the gap to glue. Then I insert the rails as shown and lay a heavy flat sheet of glass to hold everything dead flat overnight to glue securely.

 

 

 

Despite the Printout being spot on with its dimensions, you'll see that the sleepers don't align precisely. This does not concern me unduly as I cannot see what could be done anyway and I'll work around it (I guess).

 

Regarding "Mind the Gap" I freewheeled a modern RTR weighted wagon across my OO turnout and to my eye could not detect any deflection over the frog - certainly possible its there but tiny at worst.

 

All I can say is that these turnouts have been a delight to discover and now assemble and have given my modelling a boost I could never have imagined a year ago.

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by BWsTrains
Restore pic

[hayfield]

9 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

Back on topic.

 

I've now completed assembly of five of the B7 Turnouts - (cast frog) and none were required to be straight. Following the very helpful input here from Dominion and Martin I've developed a routine to curve the turnouts to the various radii +ve and -ve which works very well for me.

 

Firstly, I calculated how much reduction was required in the webbing on the side being shortened, it works out at a modest <=0.1mm per gap over the curving range even for the biggest deflection I require.

 

I created a jig to hold the switch end static and with the Templot printout of the Control in situ, set about cutting. For gentle curves (radius 6000+mm) I found I needed only 5 cuts in each of the relevant webbing strips. In this configuration the deflection from straight is only 6mm at the end.  For tighter curves I found it best to cut most of them thru to balance the curving.

 

The short side I make a careful second cut to slice as thin a sliver as I can out of the webbing so the gap will be narrow to glue one curved.

 

Then as shown below, I tape down the edges of the sleepers and use either standard CA or thickened CA depending on the gap to glue. Then I insert the rails as shown and lay a heavy flat sheet of glass to hold everything dead flat overnight to glue securely.

 

 

Despite the Printout being spot on with its dimensions, you'll see that the sleepers don't align precisely. This does not concern me unduly as I cannot see what could be done anyway and I'll work around it (I guess).

 

Regarding "Mind the Gap" I freewheeled a modern RTR weighted wagon across my OO turnout and to my eye could not detect any deflection over the frog - certainly possible its there but tiny at worst.

 

All I can say is that these turnouts have been a delight to discover and now assemble and have given my modelling a boost I could never have imagined a year ago.

 

 

 

 

Can I just say very well done, you have grasped the nettle in that you have seemingly easily converted (or started) a straight turnout to a curved one, in turn both showing how versatile these kits are, and how easily they can be adapted. At last we are starting to have a track system on a par with the quality of modern RTR stock.

 

Recently I have seen many quality layouts beautifully crafted, but sadly let down where track is concerned, hopefully soon when further items are made available we will see the quality of 00 gauge track improve. 

[martin_wynne]

9 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

Despite the Printout being spot on with its dimensions, you'll see that the sleepers don't align precisely.

 

 

Hi ,

 

Is that the Standard 00 kit?

 

To match the Templot B-7 template timbering you can either:

 

1. Use the Templot BOX file from this link:

 

 https://85a.uk/templot/box_files/finetrax_standard-00_b-7_turnouts.box

 

or

 

2. set Templot to 00-DOGAF gauge (in the other gauges list), and ignore the flangeway gaps,

 

or

 

3. set Templot to 00-DOGAI gauge, and then use SHIFT+F11 mouse action to change the crossing entry straight to 14.0mm.

 

For the 00-SF and EM kits, the Templot templates match straight off.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited March 11, 2022 by martin_wynne
link added

[BWsTrains]

It is the Standard OO kit.

 

Thanks, Martin, I'll look at your recommendations to resolve the timbering issues. Is there a way to do a global change of gauge to all my plans or will I face a complete rebuild?

 

Colin

Edited March 11, 2022 by BWsTrains

[martin_wynne]

12 minutes ago, BWsTrains said:

It is the Standard OO kit.

 

Thanks, Martin, I'll look at your recommendations to resolve the timbering issues. Is there a way to do a global change of gauge to all my plans or will I face a complete rebuild?

 

Colin

 

Hi Colin,

 

Yes, but which Templot gauge did you use for your plans?

 

For the best timbering match when curving the kits, see my previous post:

 

 https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/160234-new-range-of-simple-to-assemble-00em-gauge-pointwork-kits/&do=findComment&comment=4701029

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Enterprisingwestern]

11 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

Back on topic.

 

I've now completed assembly of five of the B7 Turnouts - (cast frog) and none were required to be straight. Following the very helpful input here from Dominion and Martin I've developed a routine to curve the turnouts to the various radii +ve and -ve which works very well for me.

 

Firstly, I calculated how much reduction was required in the webbing on the side being shortened, it works out at a modest <=0.1mm per gap over the curving range even for the biggest deflection I require.

 

I created a jig to hold the switch end static and with the Templot printout of the Control in situ, set about cutting. For gentle curves (radius 6000+mm) I found I needed only 5 cuts in each of the relevant webbing strips. In this configuration the deflection from straight is only 6mm at the end.  For tighter curves I found it best to cut most of them thru to balance the curving.

 

The short side I make a careful second cut to slice as thin a sliver as I can out of the webbing so the gap will be narrow to glue one curved.

 

Then as shown below, I tape down the edges of the sleepers and use either standard CA or thickened CA depending on the gap to glue. Then I insert the rails as shown and lay a heavy flat sheet of glass to hold everything dead flat overnight to glue securely.

 

 

Despite the Printout being spot on with its dimensions, you'll see that the sleepers don't align precisely. This does not concern me unduly as I cannot see what could be done anyway and I'll work around it (I guess).

 

Regarding "Mind the Gap" I freewheeled a modern RTR weighted wagon across my OO turnout and to my eye could not detect any deflection over the frog - certainly possible its there but tiny at worst.

 

All I can say is that these turnouts have been a delight to discover and now assemble and have given my modelling a boost I could never have imagined a year ago.

 

 

 

 

Oooh, a jig, I likes jigs!

Well done on the workaround, idea pinched thank you.

 

Mike.

[BWsTrains]

It looks like I may have erred here, I used OO/HO Universal RTR UK - it sounded like the appropriate gauge at the time but now it seems perhaps not.

 

Some further exploration is needed and then I'll report back.

[martin_wynne]

On 11/03/2022 at 11:06, BWsTrains said:

It looks like I may have erred here, I used OO/HO Universal RTR UK - it sounded like the appropriate gauge at the time but now it seems perhaps not.

 

 

Hi Colin,

 

That is included in Templot to match Peco universal, to accept all RTR models back to the year dot.

 

For his Standard 00 kits, Wayne matched the turnout geometry and timbering to DOGA-Fine (00-DOGAF), but widened the flangeway gaps to DOGA-intermediate (00-DOGAI).

 

If you are building only the kits (i.e. not intermixing with hand-built), you can ignore the flangeway gaps on the templates, because the gaps are set by the kit. So in that case it is best to design the layout plans using 00-DOGAF.

 

You can convert your existing plans to 00-DOGAF in one go, but it won't be a perfect conversion because 00-DOGAF turnouts are slightly longer than 00/H0 turnouts. There will be some gaps and overlaps between the templates. But probably not too bad and easily fixed. Much quicker than starting again.

 

To convert you plans to 00-DOGAF, do this:

 

gauge > other gauges...

 

 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited April 2, 2022 by martin_wynne
repaired missing image

[Grovenor]

Quote

Despite the Printout being spot on with its dimensions, you'll see that the sleepers don't align precisely. This does not concern me unduly as I cannot see what could be done anyway and I'll work around it (I guess).

Since the timbering is set by the kit, really the timbering on the Templot print is irrelevant, so no need to do anything to them, just build to the rail alignment to get the curves, as you are doing.

[martin_wynne]

27 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Since the timbering is set by the kit, really the timbering on the Templot print is irrelevant, so no need to do anything to them, just build to the rail alignment to get the curves, as you are doing.

 

Hi Keith,

 

It's not just the timbering. The lead length of the turnout also differs in the case of a regular-type V-crossing with the default auto setting for the crossing entry straight. That's why the convert group function creates small gaps and overlaps.

 

Which hardly matters for a stand-alone turnout, but it does disrupt the alignment for complex formations and junctions.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.