click here for a list of all existing Templot documentation
  Important Privacy Information cookie information pre-print options:    

 click image to open Templot Club in a new tab             Search           remove page highlighting
Templot club top logo
    looking for help? -                         enjoy using Templot? -
looking for Templot? - (free)



 you are not logged in  - Login | Join


receive all messages by email: info


Recent Topics
Front Page  Search  Image Gallery  Gallery Upload  My Account  Members  SourceForge  TemplotMEC  Help  
make a donation  
please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors Templot Companion - User Guide
            messages archive on Yahoo
page trail:  Templot Club > Forums > Trackbuilding topics > Building Yeovil Pen Mill in EM
Templot web site

             Rating     Building Yeovil Pen Mill in EM
  Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next Page Last Page      
 Start new topic   Reply blank   Printer friendly 
  Rate this topic  
AuthorMessage
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
281st message | this message only posted: 6 Aug 2019 23:51
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Tony W wrote: Hi Andrew.
I think you are either very brave or very foolish attempting such a combination.
My personal limit for the angle of a fixed diamond crossing in EM is 1 in 7 and that with both roads straight. Even so I find that reliability can be iffy at times. The track gauge at the center of the obtuse crossings needs to be absolute minimum and I set this to 18.0mm even when using 18.2mm gauge elsewhere to maximize the chance of success. I emphasize the track gauge of each road NOT the minimum distance as measured directly between the knuckles centers.
For flatter angles than this I insist on a switched crossing.
However, I must congratulate you on your perseverance and determination to make it work. Particularly using largely functional chairs, which I have not had much luck with thus far.

Many years ago, I was asked to construct a 1 in 8 diamond crossing on a curve in P4. I was unaware that this was not supposed to be sensible and therefore made it work.
More recently I needed a similar unit for my goods yard for Brimsdown, this time in S4.
I have posted some pictures including it in my Scaleforum thread, but nobody appeared to pick up on it. Here are a couple to save searching for them.
Regards
Tony.

The critical area.

Hello Tony
It’s good to hear from you again, it’s been quite a while. Foolish or brave or just a bit naive? Not sure how I’d  characterise my actions but as usual I stand in awe at the neatness and beauty of everything you produce and all in S4 to boot. However my question to you is  why didn’t you switch the K crossings on the double slip in your photo which is clearly curved. Having met you once and read your Brimsdown thread religiously I have an idea, but would like to hear it from horses mouth. 

I  am also interested in what you said about the gauge, but didn’t follow it entirely. When you said


The track gauge at the center of the obtuse crossings needs to be absolute minimum and I set this to 18.0mm even when using 18.2mm gauge elsewhere to maximize the chance of success. How does this maximise the chances of success I emphasize the track gauge of each road NOT the minimum distance as measured directly between the knuckles centers. 
And this I’m afraid  I didn’t follow at all. 

To show you that I am not a complete Neanderthal and am open minded I’m currently considering switching the K crossings on the single slip that on the main line that I’m about to commence battle with. Do you have any tips on the approach I might take with it. It’s a 1:8 on approximately a 3’6” curve. 

And last question for you. Have you made any progress on deciding on a tiebar format yet for Brimsdown?

Kind regards 
Andrew



__________
message ref: 27461

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
282nd message | this message only posted: 7 Aug 2019 23:01
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hello Rob

Good to hear from you. Interesting that you've adopted a 0.8mm flangeway gap and if I may echo Tony's remarks about my slip, quite a brave thing to do. Do you narrow the gauge in point work to enable ordinary EM mm back to back to run through or is there sufficient slop to allow it to work unaltered? As it closes up the difference(between EM at 1.0mm and P4 at 0.68mm) by 60%+ it must look pretty good as well as running well through crossings. Do you have any photos?

In fact at one stage I thought of bringing mine down to 0.9mm flangeway but didn't feel I really had the skills to pull it off. Even that small difference (10%) made some difference visually and quite considerably tightened up the look of common crossings.

Ah well,  time for we dram of something (out of a Riedel Cognac glass naturally) before turning in.

Kind regards

Andrew

wow, Lydl's cooking brandy in the right glass... just like a glass of Remy Martin...

__________
message ref: 27462

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
283rd message | this message only posted: 7 Aug 2019 23:23
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Andrew Duncan wrote: Hello Rob

Good to hear from you. Interesting that you've adopted a 0.8mm flangeway gap and if I may echo Tony's remarks about my slip, quite a brave thing to do.
Hi Andrew,

Rob's EM-SF standard is explained here (to which you replied): :)

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=3380&forum_id=6#p26610

As far as I know, Rob is the only one using it (so far).

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27463

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
284th message | this message only posted: 7 Aug 2019 23:34
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Jim Guthrie
United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
The track gauge at the center of the obtuse crossings needs to be absolute minimum and I set this to 18.0mm even when using 18.2mm gauge elsewhere to maximize the chance of success. How does this maximise the chances of success I emphasize the track gauge of each road NOT the minimum distance as measured directly between the knuckles centers. 
And this I’m afraid  I didn’t follow at all.

Andrew,

Another trick I have tried with "K" crossings is to raise the check rail by a small amount which effectively extends the checking distance across the gap.

Jim.

__________
message ref: 27464

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
285th message | this message only posted: 7 Aug 2019 23:53
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Jim Guthrie wrote:Another trick I have tried with "K" crossings is to raise the check rail by a small amount which effectively extends the checking distance across the gap.Hi Jim,

The prototype does that too nowadays, for the same reason.

It cause problems with any steam locomotives having flangeless drivers. Are there any of those in preservation?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27465

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
286th message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 00:40
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Nigel Brown
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote: Jim Guthrie wrote:Another trick I have tried with "K" crossings is to raise the check rail by a small amount which effectively extends the checking distance across the gap.Hi Jim,

The prototype does that too nowadays, for the same reason.

It cause problems with any steam locomotives having flangeless drivers. Are there any of those in preservation?

cheers,

Martin.
Cunning! Must remember that one.

There are 3 operational 9Fs in preservation.
Nigel

__________
message ref: 27466

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
287th message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 00:42
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Rob Manchester
Manchester



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Martin,

Oh no, don't say I am the only one using EM-SF :(.

There are several BR 9F's in working order but they are banned from main line running for just the reason you mention ( flangeless centre drivers ). The axles either side of the centre have reduced sized flanges too if I remember correctly. I have seen Evening Star on the mainline but it was a number of years back before the ban.

One of the 0-8-0 goods tender locos that ended up as part of the LNER stock had one of the driving axles with flangeless wheels but I don't think there are any still around.


Andy,

Good to hear from you too. The key to EM-SF is the fact that the flangeway gap is less than the rail head width which is what the eye expects to see on real track. Use Templot and print out a #6 diamond in both normal EM and EM-SF. The track gauge of EM-SF is narrowed to 18mm on all track until gauge widening is required on the bends. As Martin will point out you do have to use wheels with narrow flanges ( Gibson, Ultrascale etc ) rather than re-gauged Hornby etc.

Time to get my tumbler out............ :D

Rob



__________
message ref: 27467

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
288th message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 01:05
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Hi Nigel, Rob,

Thanks for the info on preserved flangeless driving wheels.

The only one I knew about was Gordon the Blue Engine:

 https://www.svrwiki.com/LMR_600_Gordon

Which is currently in the SVR railway museum at Highley, and not looking to move far anytime soon.

cheers,

Martin.




__________
message ref: 27468

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
289th message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 06:04
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote: Andrew Duncan wrote: Hello Rob

Good to hear from you. Interesting that you've adopted a 0.8mm flangeway gap and if I may echo Tony's remarks about my slip, quite a brave thing to do.
Hi Andrew,

Rob's EM-SF standard is explained here (to which you replied): :)

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=3380&forum_id=6#p26610

As far as I know, Rob is the only one using it (so far).


cheers,

Martin.
Hello Martin 
I’d completely forgotten about it, and it was only 8 months ago!
Ah well, let’s hope things don’t go down hill too quickly after this. 

Kind regards 
Andrew



__________
message ref: 27469

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
290th message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 06:10
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Jim Guthrie wrote: Andrew Duncan wrote:

Andrew,

Another trick I have tried with "K" crossings is to raise the check rail by a small amount which effectively extends the checking distance across the gap.

Jim.
Hello Jim
Clever  idea!

Kind regards 
Andrew

__________
message ref: 27470

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
291st message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 06:24
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
SBB (switzerland) has used raised check rails on the Brunig line (metre gauge) since at least 1984.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27471

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
292nd message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 06:27
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Rob Manchester wrote Andy,

Good to hear from you too. The key to EM-SF is the fact that the flangeway gap is less than the rail head width which is what the eye expects to see on real track. Use Templot and print out a #6 diamond in both normal EM and EM-SF. The track gauge of EM-SF is narrowed to 18mm on all track until gauge widening is required on the bends. As Martin will point out you do have to use wheels with narrow flanges ( Gibson, Ultrascale etc ) rather than re-gauged Hornby etc.

Time to get my tumbler out............ :D

Rob
Hello Rob
You make an interesting point about the ratio of rail head width to the flangeway width. I’ll try a print out of one of my turnouts converted,  but you know I dont really need much convincing, I’m sure it looks a great deal better.  

If you feel so moved at some point, a picture of a turnout built to the standard would be very interesting to see🤪

Kind regards 
Andrew


__________
message ref: 27472

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
293rd message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 18:01
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Rob.
Not thus far.
Not too sure about the proliferation of additional standards for EM and compatibility problems thus caused, but any reduction of the flangeway gap at obtuse crossings and in consequence the distance between the noses of the point rails should, other things being equal, help reduce problems.
Regards
Tony.
PS I didn't realise your post was the last one on the previous page so is out of step with other replies. Oops.

__________
message ref: 27473

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
294th message | this message only posted: 8 Aug 2019 18:53
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote: Tony W wrote:  However my question to you is  why didn’t you switch the K crossings on the double slip in your photo which is clearly curved. Having met you once and read your Brimsdown thread religiously I have an idea, but would like to hear it from horses mouth. 

I  am also interested in what you said about the gauge, but didn’t follow it entirely. When you said


The track gauge at the center of the obtuse crossings needs to be absolute minimum and I set this to 18.0mm even when using 18.2mm gauge elsewhere to maximize the chance of success. How does this maximise the chances of success I emphasize the track gauge of each road NOT the minimum distance as measured directly between the knuckles centers. 
And this I’m afraid  I didn’t follow at all. 

To show you that I am not a complete Neanderthal and am open minded I’m currently considering switching the K crossings on the single slip that on the main line that I’m about to commence battle with. Do you have any tips on the approach I might take with it. It’s a 1:8 on approximately a 3’6” curve. 

And last question for you. Have you made any progress on deciding on a tiebar format yet for Brimsdown?

Kind regards 
Andrew

Hi Andrew.
The goods yard at Brimsdown was straight as was the pointwork. To fit in as much of the trackwork as I wanted in the available space, something had to give and I chose to compress the goods yard end of the layout and run some of the pointwork into the end curves, thus there is a large compromise in this area. C-7 crossovers morphed into E-16s and the 1 in 8 double slip became curved. By 1965 the goods yard was little used anyway and much of it lifted, so modellers license has been invoked to some extent.

Regarding the geometry of the diamond, EM appears to have changed its standard gauge over time. I have two EMGS booklets on track standards. The earliest one states the track gauge as 18.0 mm, the later one as 18.2 mm. All the other important dimensions were unchanged. There is thus more side play with current standards than originally specified. This is undesirable at the middle of an obtuse crossing, which is why I use the 18.0 mm dimension. Incidentally I do something similar in P4 / S4 as the track gauges I have produce slightly over wide track. I use a Check rail gauge that measures 18.83 overall for this job.
The distance between the middle of the bends in the opposite stock rails at the obtuse crossing will be greater than the track gauge due to both the bending of the stock rails and the geometry of triangulation of the crossing angle. As the angle increases (in degrees) the difference will increase. Consider a 90 degree crossing the most extreme case, the dimension across the corners will be root 2 or 1.414 x the gauge.

For the mainline single slip, I would alter it in Templot and reprint it. The template will show you what you need to know. Filing the diamond switches is more akin to filing point or splice crossing rails except for the foot on the inside.
No progress re the tiebars as yet. I have been busy recently planning and installing a new Kitchen, which is now almost finished.
Regards
Tony.
 

__________
message ref: 27474

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
295th message | this message only posted: 11 Aug 2019 23:32
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides


Tony W wrote: Andrew Duncan wrote: Tony W wrote:  However my question to you is  why didn’t you switch the K crossings on the double slip in your photo which is clearly curved. Having met you once and read your Brimsdown thread religiously I have an idea, but would like to hear it from horses mouth. 

I  am also interested in what you said about the gauge, but didn’t follow it entirely. When you said


The track gauge at the center of the obtuse crossings needs to be absolute minimum and I set this to 18.0mm even when using 18.2mm gauge elsewhere to maximize the chance of success. How does this maximise the chances of success I emphasize the track gauge of each road NOT the minimum distance as measured directly between the knuckles centers. 
And this I’m afraid  I didn’t follow at all. 

To show you that I am not a complete Neanderthal and am open minded I’m currently considering switching the K crossings on the single slip that on the main line that I’m about to commence battle with. Do you have any tips on the approach I might take with it. It’s a 1:8 on approximately a 3’6” curve. 

And last question for you. Have you made any progress on deciding on a tiebar format yet for Brimsdown?

Kind regards 
Andrew

Hi Andrew.
The goods yard at Brimsdown was straight as was the pointwork. To fit in as much of the trackwork as I wanted in the available space, something had to give and I chose to compress the goods yard end of the layout and run some of the pointwork into the end curves, thus there is a large compromise in this area. C-7 crossovers morphed into E-16s and the 1 in 8 double slip became curved. By 1965 the goods yard was little used anyway and much of it lifted, so modellers license has been invoked to some extent.

Regarding the geometry of the diamond, EM appears to have changed its standard gauge over time. I have two EMGS booklets on track standards. The earliest one states the track gauge as 18.0 mm, the later one as 18.2 mm. All the other important dimensions were unchanged. There is thus more side play with current standards than originally specified. This is undesirable at the middle of an obtuse crossing, which is why I use the 18.0 mm dimension. Incidentally I do something similar in P4 / S4 as the track gauges I have produce slightly over wide track. I use a Check rail gauge that measures 18.83 overall for this job.
The distance between the middle of the bends in the opposite stock rails at the obtuse crossing will be greater than the track gauge due to both the bending of the stock rails and the geometry of triangulation of the crossing angle. As the angle increases (in degrees) the difference will increase. Consider a 90 degree crossing the most extreme case, the dimension across the corners will be root 2 or 1.414 x the gauge.

For the mainline single slip, I would alter it in Templot and reprint it. The template will show you what you need to know. Filing the diamond switches is more akin to filing point or splice crossing rails except for the foot on the inside.
No progress re the tiebars as yet. I have been busy recently planning and installing a new Kitchen, which is now almost finished.
Regards
Tony.
 
Hello Tony
Thank you for your very full answers. As purveyor of all things cookware I thoroughly approve of getting your priorities right. The kitchen is / can be/ should be, the heart of the home where food is prepared cooked and consumed suitably washed down, “tea with a fry up” and “a decent Bordeaux” īwith anything taken after 6pm. So very glad to hear you’ve not only installed your own kitchen but planned it as well. Doubtless with same attention to detail that you put into Brimsdown and other layouts before no doubt. 

I can’t pretend however to understand your geometry as I’m a visual person, failed maths O level completely and talk of roots just leads my thoughts to the garden. Perhaps if your going to be at Scaleforum you might draw me a diagram?

I’m taking your advice , or rather I’m going to attempt to take it with the single slip (1:8) on the down main, and install moving K crossings on it. This evening I’ve been just planning how to do it and where to put loose heels ( I use 10 ba nuts and bolts to hinge you may recall) for both the slip switches and the mowing K crossings. In the picture the crosses mark the spot where I’m proposing to fit them, albeit the wood sleepers marked will be replaced  with copper paxolin. 



And I see that it difficult to see the crosses on the two paxolin sleepers. 

I have done a reprint of the slip for reference but having stuck the sleepers down on the original version with fixed K crossings, I didn’t feel like tearing them up, so bodged it by tipexing over the unnecessary check rails for clarity 

Kind regards 
Andrew



__________
message ref: 27499

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
296th message | this message only posted: 12 Aug 2019 13:21
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Andrew.
The kitchen was a joint design between my wife and myself, She had the vision of what she wanted and I worked out how to make the best use of the available space, which was poorly utilized previously.

As you may be aware, for bull head rail, the tips of the switches at the K crossing of a switched diamond are supported on the center timber by special wide slide chairs. This in turn requires a wider 14" timber. The full size distance between the ends of the blade tips is 4". 1.33mm in 4mm/ft scale and is not affected by the track gauge i.e. OO, EM or P4. I won't complicate the issue here with the Flat bottom arrangement, which differs.

I shall be a Scaleforum both days as I am running a workshop, but you are welcome to drop by between sessions.
Regards
Tony.

__________
message ref: 27505

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
297th message | this message only posted: 12 Aug 2019 20:24
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
The Tony W wrote: Hi Andrew.
The kitchen was a joint design between my wife and myself, She had the vision of what she wanted and I worked out how to make the best use of the available space, which was poorly utilized previously.

As you may be aware, for bull head rail, the tips of the switches at the K crossing of a switched diamond are supported on the center timber by special wide slide chairs. This in turn requires a wider 14" timber. The full size distance between the ends of the blade tips is 4". 1.33mm in 4mm/ft scale and is not affected by the track gauge i.e. OO, EM or P4. I won't complicate the issue here with the Flat bottom arrangement, which differs.

I shall be a Scaleforum both days as I am running a workshop, but you are welcome to drop by between sessions.
Regards
Tony.
Hello Tony
I wasn’t aware of the necessity to have a wider timber in the middle of the slip, although it makes complete sense along with the wider chair. In fact I might have looked in my Switch and Crossing practice by David Smith but until you mentioned this I hadn’t. Well I have now. It turns out that the Great Western used 17” timber in this location until 1938 when they started to use two 12” timbers laid side by side. So for me it’s a 6mm wide timber with maybe two slide chairs slimmed down a bit to represent the extra wide slide chair you mentioned. 

The Smith book also mentions that in addition there is a supporting rail on the outer face for much of the length of the switch itself and that the switches themselves were of the flexible type not loose heeled as I’ve been modelling. Remembering that this is a single slip, as two of these four rails ( switches) are also stock rails at their common crossing ends I’m a little concerned that there won’t be enough flexibility in about 55mm of rail for a servo to push it over the moving elbows. And another thought reinforces this when I consider that unlike normal switches which have far less metal in them, the moving elbows are pretty well a full rail cross section for almost all their length. 

I’ve uploaded a copy of the relevant area of the slip I’m building in the hope that it all makes sense. And I’ve pencilled in the approx position of the support rails either side of the movable elbows.  Alternatively page 53 of David Smiths book will make it clearer I suspect. 





The X is the probable hinge point for the elbow and the lines either side are the lateral support rails which I have to confess I didn’t know existed before now. 

Kind regards
Andrew



__________
message ref: 27517

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
298th message | this message only posted: 13 Aug 2019 16:08
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Andrew.
You may find this picture useful. It appears GWR.
You have answered one of my questions as to what the additional pieces of rail were for.

There is much detail here, the wider and longer center timber is obvious. There are also locking bars visible.
Regards
Tony.

__________
message ref: 27541

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
299th message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 06:22
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
P
Tony W wrote: Hi Andrew.
You may find this picture useful. It appears GWR.
You have answered one of my questions as to what the additional pieces of rail were for.

There is much detail here, the wider and longer center timber is obvious. There are also locking bars visible.
Regards
Tony.


Thanks very much for the photo Tony.

Two questions spring immediately to mind. 

Firstly would they have had facing point locks in the Yeovil scenario as crossing from Up line  to Down would have involved only goods stock or maybe empty coaches? 

Secondly in the photo, the support rails either side of the switches are very short. In the David Smith book they are represented as going most of the way to the common crossing. What was the logic that they applied here I wonder. Maybe the Yeovil situation demanded full length support ( to the common crossing) as it was on a sharpish curve? 

Any informed thoughts would be gratefully received.  

Andrew




__________
message ref: 27548

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
300th message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 15:40
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Andrew.
I think this may be one for the experts. This is the only picture I have come across showing such additional rails and I wondered what their purpose was, a question you have answered. As far as I can tell these support rails are bolted to the switch rails at the first fixed chair only. What other means of support they have I cannot say, but I suspect special chairs are required. It would certainly make sense to employ longer support rails for curved trackwork where the side forces would be greater.

You are probably correct about the facing point lock situation. It is my understanding that FPLs were only mandatory for passenger carrying lines, but that does not necessarily exclude their use in other situations.
Regards
Tony.


__________
message ref: 27555

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
301st message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 16:07
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Tony W wrote: Hi Andrew.
I think this may be one for the experts. This is the only picture I have come across showing such additional rails and I wondered what their purpose was, a question you have answered. As far as I can tell these support rails are bolted to the switch rails at the first fixed chair only. What other means of support they have I cannot say, but I suspect special chairs are required.
Hi Tony,

David Smith's GWR track book has a detailed description, page 55.

The GWR regarded the switches in a switch-diamond as very similar to ordinary switches, the reinforcing rails being the stock rails, with similar fixings and slide chairs. The switch rails were flexible, not loose-heel, and 32ft long (as the 30ft straight switches).

But unlike other GWR switches, they were undercut rather than joggled, it being impossible to provide a joggle in the K-crossing wing rails.

The reinforcing rails were normally much longer than in your photo, almost the full length of the switch rail. Your photo is unusual. Also the adzing of the sleepers in the foreground is puzzling. :?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27556

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
302nd message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 16:21
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Martin.
Unfortunately David Smiths book is not part of my collection and I don't recall now where I found that picture or where it was taken. I think if I were in Andrew's situation, I would follow the book rather than the picture. If it were taken on a preserved line anything is possible.
Regards
Tony.

__________
message ref: 27557

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
303rd message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 16:36
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Tony W wrote: Hi Martin.
Unfortunately David Smiths book is not part of my collection and I don't recall now where I found that picture or where it was taken. I think if I were in Andrew's situation, I would follow the book rather than the picture. If it were taken on a preserved line anything is possible.
Regards
Tony.
Hi Tony,

A lot of the chairs visible seem to be of slab & bracket design, which is not the original GWR design. This might be a later BR(W) revised version.

It is interesting to see the reversing crank in the rodding on the extended middle timber. A detail worth modelling.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27558

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
304th message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 18:14
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Rob Manchester
Manchester



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Tony W wrote: Hi Martin.
Unfortunately David Smiths book is not part of my collection and I don't recall now where I found that picture or where it was taken. I think if I were in Andrew's situation, I would follow the book rather than the picture. If it were taken on a preserved line anything is possible.
Regards
Tony.
Hi Tony,
The cheapest one available at present is this one


Well worth it in my view for the design insights it gives. Your view may vary.

Rob



__________
message ref: 27559

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
305th message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 18:38
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Rob Manchester wrote:The cheapest one available at present is this one

Well worth it in my view for the design insights it gives. Your view may vary.

Rob
Hi Rob,

Still listed new from the GWSG:

 http://gwsg.org.uk/GWSG_Publications.html

Is that wrong or out of stock?

I agree it's an essential read for anyone interested in track, even if not GWR or in 4mm scale. :)

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27560

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
306th message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 18:42
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Rob Manchester
Manchester



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Yes, forgot that source. May be worth Tony emailing them to check if available.

Rob


__________
message ref: 27561

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
307th message | this message only posted: 14 Aug 2019 22:15
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Nigel Brown
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
GWSG are usually pretty good at noting items out of stock. It does appear to be available and cheaper than the Amazon version. I agree, it's an excellent investment.

I'm counting my pennies to see if I can afford their new GWR signalling book.

Nigel
__________
message ref: 27563

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
308th message | this message only posted: 15 Aug 2019 10:11
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Graham Idle
Redhill, Surrey, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Andrew, I have a copy of this which I would be happy to lend to you if you would like.
Regards, Graham Idle
__________
message ref: 27566

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
309th message | this message only posted: 15 Aug 2019 11:17
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Graham Idle wrote: Andrew, I have a copy of this which I would be happy to lend to you if you would like.
Regards, Graham Idle
Hello Graham
That s very kind of you to offer but in fact I do have a copy, and it’s Tony who doesn’t have one. And despite having read it several times I’m still finding it hard to get my head around all the nuances of this piece of point work, not least because I don’t have any photos of that far end of the station. At present I don’t even know if in reality they did.use moving K crossings or fixed ones?

Anyway thanks again for the offer. 
Kind regards
Andrew

__________
message ref: 27570

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
310th message | this message only posted: 15 Aug 2019 16:05
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Graham Idle
Redhill, Surrey, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote: Graham Idle wrote: Andrew, I have a copy of this which I would be happy to lend to you if you would like.
Regards, Graham Idle
Hello Graham
That s very kind of you to offer but in fact I do have a copy, and it’s Tony who doesn’t have one. And despite having read it several times I’m still finding it hard to get my head around all the nuances of this piece of point work, not least because I don’t have any photos of that far end of the station. At present I don’t even know if in reality they did.use moving K crossings or fixed ones?

Anyway thanks again for the offer. 
Kind regards
Andrew
No problem Andrew, I too find pointwork bewildering at times.

Regards, Graham

__________
message ref: 27572

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
311th message | this message only posted: 17 Aug 2019 11:05
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote: Tony W wrote: Hi Andrew.
I think this may be one for the experts. This is the only picture I have come across showing such additional rails and I wondered what their purpose was, a question you have answered. As far as I can tell these support rails are bolted to the switch rails at the first fixed chair only. What other means of support they have I cannot say, but I suspect special chairs are required.
Hi Tony,

David Smith's GWR track book has a detailed description, page 55.


The GWR regarded the switches in a switch-diamond as very similar to ordinary switches, the reinforcing rails being the stock rails, with similar fixings and slide chairs. The switch rails were flexible, not loose-heel, and 32ft long (as the 30ft straight switches).

But unlike other GWR switches, they were undercut rather than joggled, it being impossible to provide a joggle in the K-crossing wing rails.

The reinforcing rails were normally much longer than in your photo, almost the full length of the switch rail. Your photo is unusual. Also the adzing of the sleepers in the foreground is puzzling. :?

cheers,

Martin.
Hello Martin
Thanks for your reply and knowledge of these things. 

I’ve attached a photo of my proposed plan of how I’m intending to build it. It’s not clear to me on page 55 whether the slip switches ( as opposed to the moving elbows) were loose heeled or not. As I said previously in the thread I’m concerned that there won’t be enough flexibility in the rail if I don’t hinge them ( nut and bolt). But it’s also true I haven’t built a conventional switch in years and so I’m not really familiar with how flexible fixed heel blades can be? Am I worrying unnecessarily?

In any case which is the correct approach for the slip switches, fixed or loose heel?

This is the complete slip with ordinary chairs and slide chairs marked along with the extra support rails as well. In the photo I’ve forgotten to extend the centre timber onto which I’ll need to build some semblance of the reverse crank. 



Kind regards 
Andrew





__________
message ref: 27586

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
312th message | this message only posted: 17 Aug 2019 11:48
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Hi Andrew,

Page 57 says all slip switches in GWR compounds (GWR-speak for slips) were old-type loose-heel switches (hinged). So if you happy building such, I would go ahead and do the same.

However, page 55 says the moving K-crossing switches (movable elbows) were long flexible switches. I see you have marked them to be hinged. I think they would be sufficiently flexible if you made them solid. They need to fixed where they are forming the stock rails for the slip switches, but beyond there they can be flexible (unless your point-motors are more feeble than most -- will you be using two of them for the K-crossings, or just one with a rocking crank, as the prototype?).

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27587

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
313th message | this message only posted: 17 Aug 2019 13:13
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Andrew.
My bible tends to be British Railway Track published by The Permanent Way Institution since most of my track is of the REA type.
This lists the types of special chairs required for switched diamonds, but does not give a list of how many of each type, unlike turnouts. These are of the sprung, fixed heel type only. The few switched diamonds I have built, I have allowed a couple of extra slide type chairs to increase the flexibility.
However this will be academic for you as you will be using loose heel switches.
(I do have other track publications in my library though, just not that one.)
Regards
Tony.

__________
message ref: 27588

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
314th message | this message only posted: 17 Aug 2019 13:58
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Andrew,

Page 57 says all slip switches in GWR compounds (GWR-speak for slips) were old-type loose-heel switches (hinged). So if you happy building such, I would go ahead and do the same.

However, page 55 says the moving K-crossing switches (movable elbows) were long flexible switches. I see you have marked them to be hinged. I think they would be sufficiently flexible if you made them solid. They need to fixed where they are forming the stock rails for the slip switches, but beyond there they can be flexible (unless your point-motors are more feeble than most -- will you be using two of them for the K-crossings, or just one with a rocking crank, as the prototype?).

cheers,

Martin.
Hello Martin
Thank you and yes I’m very happy to build them with hinged heels,  which is how all my turnouts ate constructed. And no I’ll be using two servos on the knuckles one on each pair although I’m now thinking that I can probably put the tie bars in their prototypical position immediately either side of  the centre timber, not as I’ve drawn it, ( one  timber removed from that position). 

The servos are the  normal 9gm ones, so no not especially weak I’d say. 
Thanks for your help. 
Kind regards 
Andrew



__________
message ref: 27589

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
315th message | this message only posted: 17 Aug 2019 14:09
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Tony W wrote: Hi Andrew.
My bible tends to be British Railway Track published by The Permanent Way Institution since most of my track is of the REA type.
This lists the types of special chairs required for switched diamonds, but does not give a list of how many of each type, unlike turnouts. These are of the sprung, fixed heel type only. The few switched diamonds I have built, I have allowed a couple of extra slide type chairs to increase the flexibility.
However this will be academic for you as you will be using loose heel switches.
(I do have other track publications in my library though, just not that one.)
Regards
Tony.
Hello Tony
Yes understood and thanks for your experience on moving knuckles.  As you can see from Martin’s advice and my reply to him it looks like slips are mongrels when it comes to the types of switch employed. Fixed hinge for the knuckles and loose heeled for the slip roads!

Thanks again for your help and practical experience. 

Kind regards
Andrew





__________
message ref: 27590

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
316th message | this message only posted: 25 Aug 2019 10:53
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
So progress has been a bit slow recently but I have now cut the channels for control wires for the K Crossings ( moving elbows, I don’t know which is the correct terminology). And have run brass 0.4mm wire through them In readiness to connect them to the tie bars and servos at the back of the baseboard. 
Whilst talking channels in the baseboard surface; this time I’ve installed tubes for all the surface mounted wiring to make it easier to terminate the wire,  particularly when attaching to the rail sides. If I get it wrong I can pull through a bit of extra wire. This is an idea I got from Tim at Missenden a few weeks ago. A clever simple idea that I hadn’t thought of. Another benefit of going to these things particularly for a lone modeller. 

So here’s a photo of the centre of the slip showing the loose heeled switch hinges / nuts soldered to the underside of the sleepers just before sticking in position, and the 17” wide central timber, extra long to take the operating crank, which I’ll build in when installing the point rodding. These loose heels are for the slip switches, the K Crossings are not loose heel so don’t require any hinge. 







And here’s the complete slip with all the sleepers in place and the first rail bent to the right shape as far I could manage, to reduce the stress and  just laid in place to see how it follows the curves. You can also see the short lengths of tinned brass strip super glued to the timbers in places of potential mechanical stress such as the check rails and the centre of the slip itself. 
EDIT oops sorry no couldn’t because the K crossing ones weren’t in that photo, but here they are now. 



Incidentally I found that in building the double slip it was tricky not having these strips more securely tied to the sleepers ( heat easily breaks the bond of superglue) so this time I’m borrowing half an idea from Howard Bolton and am going to drill and pin them in place so that at a key moment of soldering, the whole thing doesn’t move in relation to the sleeper.  No guesses as to how I know this can happen!

Kind regards 
Andrew 




__________
message ref: 27649

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
317th message | this message only posted: 27 Aug 2019 05:35
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
All these moving K crossings / Elbows are a new experience for me. In one way simpler because there are no check rails in the centre as there were with double slip I built a few weeks ago ( or the diamonds I’ve built before) but more complex thinking things through. For example two of the four moving elbows have to be exactly the right length to finish in the centre of the Single Compound ( GWR terminology for a single slip) and at the same time these two are the stock rails for two of the four switch blades at the outer ends of the slip, so requiring joggles. This is further complicated by the support rails that the GWR used strapped to the outside of each elbow. These I will be including but are not present in the photo below. 
Surprisingly despite the great weather this weekend, much of it spent pottering in the garden I managed to temporarily lay out some of centre of the slip including one of the moving elbows correctly in place and it looks like it might all line up ok. Another surprise if I’m right!


So here you can see (at the bottom of the photo ) the elbow is snuggly up against its Stock Rail (?) whereas the one opposite ( above in the photo) is sitting just a touch proud of the rail that it’s abutted to, but enough I expect to derail anything travelling over it.  I realise, looking at this photo, how Heath Robinson my modelling looks as. Hopefully  once sprayed and ballasted, it’ll look the part?


Later I’ll try to upload an image that illustrates my point about the other end of the elbow rail near the crossing with its joggle 

Andrew



__________
message ref: 27655

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
318th message | this message only posted: 28 Aug 2019 22:26
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
And here’s a rather poor photograph of the whole slip with one of the four support rails laid alongside it albeit with a bit too much gap between it and the rail it’s meant to be supporting and that rail which a flexible switch at one end and a stock rail at the other, actually has the toggle already formed but it’s rather difficult to see. 



__________
message ref: 27656

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
319th message | this message only posted: 30 Aug 2019 17:04
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
So here you can see (at the bottom of the photo ) the elbow is snuggly up against its Stock Rail (?) whereas the one opposite ( above in the photo) is sitting just a touch proud of the rail that it’s abutted to, but enough I expect to derail anything travelling over it.



Andrew


Hi Andrew.
The lower switch blade looks fine to me, but as you rightly state, the upper one needs some attention. It is too long and overlaps the center of the bend in the stock rail. The tip is also too thick. If you can duplicate the fit of the lower switch rail with the other three I don't foresee any great problems with the running.
Regards
Tony.

__________
message ref: 27657

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
320th message | this message only posted: 30 Aug 2019 23:25
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Andrew Duncan
Reigate, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Tony W wrote: Andrew Duncan wrote:
So here you can see (at the bottom of the photo ) the elbow is snuggly up against its Stock Rail (?) whereas the one opposite ( above in the photo) is sitting just a touch proud of the rail that it’s abutted to, but enough I expect to derail anything travelling over it.



Hi Andrew.
The lower switch blade looks fine to me, but as you rightly state, the upper one needs some attention. It is too long and overlaps the center of the bend in the stock rail. The tip is also too thick. If you can duplicate the fit of the lower switch rail with the other three I don't foresee any great problems with the running.
Regards
Tony.
Hello Tony

Thanks for your thoughts on the switch blades and I’m interested in your observations of the upper blade being too thick. I’m using steel rail and as I produced this one in the Scalefour society jig, I went a touch too far and filed too much off leaving the centre web very thin (foil like), I tried repairing it by filing back the point to get to more solid rail but maybe went a bit far and as a result have too blunt a nose. 

But here my question to you is, how different is this point ( on a moving K crossing) to the blunt nose of a common crossing, which really is quite blunt? Should it be rounded off reduced in height by a smidgen as with a common crossing, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I mentioned the rail being steel as I’ve been dipping in and out of your treatise on turnout construction over on E4rum, which is excellent by the way, and noticed your comments about steel being less forgiving in this sort of situation. 

Kind regards 
Andrew 





__________
message ref: 27658

 
This is topic ID = 2547     Page created at 19:25 (local time) Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next Page Last Page    
You can type a quick reply to this topic here.

Click in the box to begin.


But to reply to an individual message, or to include images, attachments and formatted text, use the reply buttons on each message above.

To start a new topic in this forum, click the Start new topic button below.
To start a new topic in a different forum, click the Forum Jump drop-down list below.

             Start new topic 

 click to jump to a different forum:     Back to top of page

Templot Club > Forums > Trackbuilding topics > Building Yeovil Pen Mill in EM
about Templot Club

list recently active topics Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so.

The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason.
Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2019  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems