Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 29 May 2015 14:24 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
following on I did a quick and dirty book comparison, using only C&L pricing using a Templot turnout for a right hand B 5 type turnout all sleepers are 1.6mm thick 1.2 metres of HiNi Bullhead £1.2 ( assuming you are bulk buying rail) 2.5 strips of 17" long copper clad £2.62 4 strips of 1.6 ply 300mm sleeper strip £0.68 exactoscale 1.6mm turnout sleepers ( builds 2 points) £4.25 vero pins costs have been ignored @ 8.50 per 1000 Chairs - plastic c&L 60 plain chairs @4.8p per chair ( 500) £2.9 c&l 20 slide chairs £1.71 allows 20 chairs for butchering £0.96 Exactoscale ABC fully functional chairs turnout builds 2 point £4.50 per point Exactoscale Common Crossing chairs ( 2 points £4.50 so you can see firstly that ply is now far cheaper then any other method so 90% ply with functional plain chairs + slide and some copper clad at strong points with cosmetic chairs at common crossing approx £8.20 a point assuming one 17" strip of copper clad is used and all rest are ply . approx £7.20 a point for all ply for all plastic( all exacto scale ) with fully functional chairs and 1.6mm thick £14.45 all copperclad , with cosmetic chairs £9.30 chairs are adding close to £4.5 per turnout ( or £9 for fully functional ) , so omitting them from either ply of copper clad, almost reduces the cost in half. All plastic is the most expensive by the way , costs of plain track using ply and functional chairs £9.8 per metre, compared to approx £5.00 metre C&L flexitrack ( in 25M bulk ) |
||
| Last edited on 29 May 2015 14:37 by madscientist |
|||
|
posted: 29 May 2015 14:39 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote:using a Templot turnout for a right hand B 5 type turnoutThat's a very odd size. Don't build a B-5 unless you have a very good reason. It would have an unnecessarily long switch unmatched to the crossing angle, and a much sharper radius than other 1:5 turnouts: 2_290934_260000000.png  For 1:5 turnouts, use an A-size switch, or for the shortest length and easiest radius use a 9ft straight switch. For a B-size switch, don't go shorter than 1:6 crossing angle. Many thanks for the costings info. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 29 May 2015 14:40 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Not using the actual template, merely using it as a cost comparison, obviously different turnouts will be different so to speak | ||
|
posted: posted: 29 May 2015 14:43 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
as an aside Martin, what turnout would you recommend to keep inside 00-SF min radius , but gave the most compact crossovers | ||
|
29 May 2015 14:43 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
as an aside Martin, what turnout would you recommend to keep inside 00-SF min radius , but gave the most compact crossovers | ||
|
posted: 29 May 2015 15:20 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote: as an aside Martin, what turnout would you recommend to keep inside 00-SF min radius , but gave the most compact crossoversThat depends whether it is straight or curved, in a yard or a main running line, strictly prototypical or allowing model compromises? With enough gauge-widening there isn't actually a minimum radius. However, it doesn't make sense to use 00-SF for layouts where general curves are sharper than about 750mm / 30" radius. The length of a crossover is also very significantly affected by the track centres spacing. But you can't use the minimum 11ft-2in (6ft-way) (44.67mm centres) if there is significant curving because you need extra running clearance between the tracks. You can ease the radius by changing from a regular-type V-crossing to generic. But this makes a more abrupt reverse curve over the crossover road. A nice short turnout would be a 10ft GWR curved switch with 1:5.5 crossing angle. This makes 840mm / 33" radius, and a compact crossover in 433mm / 17" overall. But you wouldn't want to run a main-line passenger train over it: 2_291017_240000000.png  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 29 May 2015 16:49 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Surely turnout cost is the last thing you should take into account. Either way the costs are small compared to say buying or building a locomotive. Choose a method which you think will work for your requirements, which you can build with confidence, and will look good. Cheers Nigel |
||
|
posted: 29 May 2015 19:54 from: dave turner
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Nigel - Building model railways as a hobby is expensive. It may not seem much to save a little for a length of track or a turnout, but consider how much you need to spend on track-work for even a medium sized layout. If you could half the cost of the chairs that would be a significant saving. I'm not suggesting that's likely but making the point that reducing the spend on any item used in the 100s & 1000s may allow another loco to be bought. |
||
| Last edited on 29 May 2015 19:55 by dave turner |
|||
|
posted: 29 May 2015 23:53 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Indeed cost is a fsctor , with 40 turnouts and a fiddle yard to boot , costs mount up. Whats intersting ,with the price rises on copperclad and the availability issues , ply might end up the dominant proces |
||
|
posted: 30 May 2015 07:58 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
You have made some comparisons which I believe are incorrect and misleading I will use your costings and estimates on rail and timber strips and the cost of chairs, but my own calculations on chairs required. Please note a steep rise in the cost of copperclad strip is due very shortly I have based it on an A5 turnout and initially not used either the common crossing chairs or the additional switch chairs A fully built copperclad turnout (no chairs) will cost £4.04, now if you wish to add chairs to a copperclad turnout excluding the cost of raising the rail off the timbers (as you may use scrap brass from a fret)will add another £5.38 (94 std chairs and 16 slide chairs)Making a total of £9.42 Your costs on both the common crossing chairs and plastic sleepers are also wrong, there are 5 sets of common crossing chairs in a packet and there is enough material in an Exactoscale plastic crossing timber pack to build 3 A5 turnouts (owing to the number of longer timbers) Leaving the special chairs out of the costings (as there is no as the additional slide chairs can be used on a copperclad turnout without having to seriously alter most of them) A turnout made from ply timbers would cost £7.50 and using Exactoscale timbers £9.66 To my mind building a copperclad turnout and then adding chairs is shear madness, however I have in practice built a turnout using copperclad timbers at the common crossing, duly raised by 0.5 mm so they are compatible with standard chaired track construction. The reason was to prove that there is an alternative method of building the common crossing for those who are happy to build common crossings in the copperclad construction method, rather than a free standing method For those wishing for added detail the following can be used Bridge chairs, These are used from the transition of block chairs (in either the common crossing or additional slide chair packs) to standard chairs where there is not enough room for a standard chair (either side of 10 used per turnout) these are £8.50 per 100 so after deducting the cost of standard chairs add a few pence to the bill Common crossing chairs A pack contains a set of 5 different sizes (1-5,6,7,8 & 10) At £4.50 if you can use the whole pack then 90p a turnout but a saving of appx 8 chairs per turnout Additional switch chairs, a pack contains one left and one right hand set (plenty of bits left over) £2.25 per turnout and replaces about 12 chairs depending on size Check rail chairs Cost 90p per turnout and saves about 20 chairs and looks better than chopped up chairs. This has probably confused the hell out of most folk, what I would say is that a turnout built from normal and slide chairs will look so much better than a commercial RTR turnout and will be just as robust. If a layout will be inspected closely by others (if showing) then the additional detailed chairs are worth the investment or if you are building a few. I just buy the additional chairs as and when I run out, but if you are making one or two turnouts is it worth buying a pack ? You could always sell the surplus off afterwards To summarise , currently copperclad construction is the cheapest building method (but these costings will increase in the very near future). Using ply timbers will save a bit but when compared to a RTR turnout and hand built one will cost a similar amount or less depending on materials and method used |
||
| Last edited on 30 May 2015 08:14 by Hayfield |
|||
|
posted: 30 May 2015 08:00 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote: Indeed cost is a fsctor , with 40 turnouts and a fiddle yard to boot , costs mount up. The practice years ago was to miss out timbers in a turnout in the fiddle yards, sometimes only leaving 1 in every 3, this will reduce the costings further |
||
|
posted: 1 Jun 2015 13:40 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
The reason i added chairs to copperclad was to compare like for like. I see no additional madness to adding cosmetic chairs to copperclad as to add them to B-S ply method. It still remains that ply is cheaper at this stage then either copper or plastic. And copperclad is only going one way. I suspect its days ate numbered for track construction. Note that if building to 00-Sf there is no completely fully functional chair based solution without modifying chairs |
||
|
posted: 1 Jun 2015 14:06 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote:Note that if building to 00-Sf there is no completely fully functional chair based solution without modifying chairsThe same applies to 00-BF, DOGA-Fine, and EM. Only P4 has a full set of functional chairs available (Exactoscale). Martin. |
||
|
posted: 1 Jun 2015 23:24 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote: The reason i added chairs to copperclad was to compare like for like. I see no additional madness to adding cosmetic chairs to copperclad as to add them to B-S ply method.I think you are being very pessimistic about copperclad construction, I believe it has a future, as there are those who want the flowing track that hand built trackwork gives, but are happy with chair-less turnouts and crossings. Likewise in storage yards the flexibility hand built track gives increases the designs that can be achieved. and of course cost savings can be made by only using 1 in 3 sleepers for off stage trackwork There seems a reluctance in model railway kits to use the best material for the job. I do like the craftsman kits which use both etched and cast components for the loco body, or the London Road models using the resin tanks. I am now seeing the benefit of mixing methods and materials as a viable way forward. 3D printing should open up even more choice After watching Kenton build a copperclad crossing in 0 gauge lifting the rail above each sleeper by 1 mm so he could fit chairs to it, I came to the conclusion that to do this on every sleeper/timber was both overkill and totally inefficient in both time and materials. BUT I do see the benefits of using selected copperclad timbers/sleepers in certain areas where for which for several reasons may be beneficial to the builder. I have tried this method out myself using both metal strip and copperclad strip, preferring the latter. With regard to the Exactoscale range of special chairs, as Martin has replied its not just 00sf, but 00 and EM gauges that also need adaptation. These chairs were designed for the P4 Company's range of P4 gauge kits, only slide chairs were added designed solely for other 4 mm gauges. To be quite honest the adaptation method is far easier to use with the check chairs for EM and 00 gauges as threading the stock and check rails at the same time is more difficult. So when using the special chairs with other gauges some may need cutting to fit or smaller/larger ones used (difficult to explain in words alone) Thanks for the thread as it is of interest in comparing alternative methods and materials in price and ease of use. Thought provoking |
||
|
posted: 2 Jun 2015 14:13 from: David R
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: madscientist wrote:Use of the Exactoscale gauge widened check rail chairs for EM works well albeit at the expense of slight gauge-narrowing; although it could be argued that 18.2mm for EM is over-gauge anyway!Note that if building to 00-Sf there is no completely fully functional chair based solution without modifying chairsThe same applies to 00-BF, DOGA-Fine, and EM. Martin Wynne wrote: Only P4 has a full set of functional chairs available (Exactoscale)....and ScaleSeven (from Off The Rails)...100_010848_190000000.jpg  100_020909_230000000.jpg  Sliding the chairs onto the rail is made "easier" by using separate keys  Regards Dave R http://www.shapeways.com/shops/otr |
||
| Last edited on 2 Jun 2015 17:00 by David R |
|||
|
posted: 2 Jun 2015 18:17 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hayfield wrote:You have made some comparisons which I believe are incorrect and misleading I will use your costings and estimates on rail and timber strips and the cost of chairs, but my own calculations on chairs required. Please note a steep rise in the cost of copperclad strip is due very shortly Thanks. I would contend that ply based turnouts are the cheapest method using the B-S method, since we have the strange situation that copperclad is now substantially dearer then ply. |
||
| Last edited on 2 Jun 2015 18:20 by madscientist |
|||
|
posted: 2 Jun 2015 18:43 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Cost in one way is important but in another not the main consideration. It is good though that the myth that hand built track is expensive has been proven wrong There will be those who then will site the cost of buying ready made common crossings and switch rails, which will increase the cost of a turnout substantially. Hopefully people will realise that there may be other easier ways of making the common crossing. Secondly and perhaps more importantly the cost of having a fully detailed turnout using components rather than kits to build them has been proved not to be much more than a RTR standard product What I would say to keep costs down is to vary the size of the turnouts so you use as many of the different sizes as possible. Or resell what you don't use |
||
|
posted: 2 Jun 2015 20:12 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I agree , cost is of course only one factor. We are conveniently forgetting the cost of time and the amount of it required ( and available ) this alone makes for example PECO, turnouts " good value". My examples , flawed as they might be, were not to seek the lowest form of construction. More to illustrate the " bang for the buck" . I agree that using kits or pre-made components like vees or switch blades is most illogical ( I'm watching some old star trek ! ) the point of hand built turnouts is exactly that and the techniques are not hard to master |
||
| 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. |