Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 780The next steps once I have the laser cut timber sleepers
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 6 Apr 2009 12:07

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Well the track plan is all but done and dusted now thanks to Raymond Walley. The quotes for the laser cut timber sleepers are imminent. I have successfully managed to download the 0.91c PUG tonight and installed it in my virtual windows environment Parallels on my Mac. I was then able to properly view the completed track plan and print it to a pdf file at A3 size.

This has led me to some additional questions that hopefully the learned folk of this forum can assist with.

1) I noticed that in templot it appears that A3 is the largest paper size you can print to. Is this a function of the particular pdf writer I have or the program itself? I am imagining it is a function of the pdf for free writer I had downloaded into my virtul windows environment. Any suggestions on where I can get A2 print sizing would be much appreciated. (Saves all the sticky tape you see!)

2) Having printed the track plan to pdf I notice that there are of course no chair details shown (as opposed to the templates provided by the likes of Brian at C&L). Being a novice when it comes to track building and knowledge of the permanent way what is the best approach when it comes to deciding and detailing the appropriate chairs required to build the trackwork? I have 8 of C&L's point kits which contain a significant number of the standard sliding chairs and regular four bolt chairs that suit my Midland based layout. Will this be a case of posting an image of each pontwork part and discussing whether a certain chair should be used in a certain location?

3) To maximise the advantage of the laser cut sheets of track work (16 A3 pages mind you) I am keen to lay the sleepers onto preinstalled underlay using PVA or similar to secure it. NOw following the exploits of Iain Rice in his text on the subject would suggest that pre staining the sleepers is the go. Would this be valid for this particular case where the entire sleepers are laid in one go?

4) I am planning on ballasting the track work once the sleepers are laid BEFORE installing any of the chairs and rail components. The layout is (hopefully) three baseboards of no more than 1.2 metres long and about 475mm wide. As such they easilty sit on my modelling bench and I was planning on building them in-situ. Comments and thoughts on this appreciated. I see no value in building the slabs of track work on paper and relocating them to the layout when the laser cutting creates useful alignment to ensure each piece of laser cut panel aligns itself with its neighbor eliminating the hassel of trying to align individula items of pointwork insitu.

5) Assuming the trackbed is laid, sleepers are stuck down (pre stained or weathered post installation) I am then planning to ballast the track along the lines of that proposed by Rice ie at the same time as laying the sleepers. As individual sleepers do not need to be laid I am assumning that a slab of track work sleepers can be laid onto a PVA glue quite quickly and the ballast for the whole sheet laid at the same time. Thoughts and ideas?

6) Once this is done I was planning on approaching the layout from kind of one end (first layout board being the lefthand end) and simply commencing to construct the trackwork, referring to a printed out version of the Templot template as a guide using my rolling gauges etc. Do I need to start at the most complex piece of pointwork first (double slip) as conventional wisdom would suggest or because I am using the lasr cut sleepers that are fully aligned with each other is this approach really necessary? Obviously I am not advocating the leaving of the slip until abslutely last!

I hope these are questions that others find relevant and interesting. I am happy to telephone anyone to discuss this matter further though if the thought of replying by typing is a little over whelming!

Best regards,

Paul.

posted: 6 Apr 2009 12:30

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
I noticed that in Templot it appears that A3 is the largest paper size you can print to. Is this a function of the particular pdf writer I have or the program itself?
Hi Paul,

There is no size restriction in Templot itself. The maximum size is determined by the printer driver. In Windows XP you can create larger paper sizes, which a compatible printer driver should then adopt. See:

topic 224 - message 1096

There may be a restriction depending on which PDF software the print shop uses to print your track plan. Using the Foxit PDF reader there appears to be no restriction -- you can have a roll-paper print 50ft long if you want one. Using Adobe Reader, printing seems to be limited to around 13ft / 4 metres maximum length per page.

In the next Pug but one, Templot will include direct printing to PDF up to any size you like without the hassle of setting paper sizes on a printer driver. If you are having trouble, send me your .box file and I will create a large format PDF file for you.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Apr 2009 13:19

from:

richard_t
 
Nr. Spalding, South Holland - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
2) Having printed the track plan to pdf I notice that there are of course no chair details shown (as opposed to the templates provided by the likes of Brian at C&L). Being a novice when it comes to track building and knowledge of the permanent way what is the best approach when it comes to deciding and detailing the appropriate chairs required to build the trackwork? I have 8 of C&L's point kits which contain a significant number of the standard sliding chairs and regular four bolt chairs that suit my Midland based layout. Will this be a case of posting an image of each pontwork part and discussing whether a certain chair should be used in a certain location?

Paul.


David, of Lumpy Sidings, recently recommended "Standard Railway Equipment - Permanent Way, 1926" to me from the NERA. It covers LNER, LMS and SR, with GWR going there own way, and is a copy of trackwork diagrams, from the individual chairs (although the S1 chair is missing), through bolts and what-not to chairing details for switches (size A-E), and common and obtuse crossings. Not all of the chair types are available from the trade, although I think you're 4mm, so you have a few more than us 7mm boys. It is post grouping, so might not help with the Midland.

Sorry I could only "help" on 1 of 6 :( Although if you want my opinion I'd leave ballasting towards the end, so that you can bed in signal posts, point rodding supports, weeds and the like.

Richard.

Links: http://www.ner.org.uk/ and http://homepages.tesco.net/~david.r.rayner/lumpy/index.html#top

posted: 6 Apr 2009 13:37

from:

Raymond
 
Bexhill-on-sea - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrot
A few good pictures should help with the chairing but I am sure there others on this forum who can advise better than I for this one.

I would counsel against using PVA to stick it down.  Go the route Brian has gone and use a thin foam base (he supplies it) stuck down with latex and then stick the track base to that with latex.  PVA'd track is damn noisy and, once set, almost impossible to lift again without damage.

I assume you are going to soak your track bases in dilute pipe weld so that the butanone has something to key to.  I have found that this is best done after staining but leave the weathering until the rails are in place so it all has continuity.

I like the idea of ballasting before the rails go down but you will need to be very careful to leave space for the tie bars.

Personally I would start with the slip but, if you have not built track like this before, start with something easy.

Regards

Raymond

posted: 6 Apr 2009 14:09

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
5) Assuming the trackbed is laid, sleepers are stuck down (pre stained or weathered post installation) I am then planning to ballast the track along the lines of that proposed by Rice i.e. at the same time as laying the sleepers.
Hi Paul,

You'll get a lot of differing views. :)

If it was me I'd leave all ballasting until the track was laid, wired, painted, and the layout was running and operational for 3 months. On the prototype ballast is part of p.w. engineering, but on a model it is purely cosmetic and part of the scenic department. It's ten times easier to make adjustments and corrections to the trackwork and wiring before the scenic department have been let anywhere near it. You need a fully operational layout before letting them loose on the track. :cool:

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Apr 2009 14:17

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
richard_t wrote:
David, of Lumpy Sidings, recently recommended "Standard Railway Equipment - Permanent Way, 1926" to me from the NERA.
Ordering details at:

message 4213

Martin.

posted: 6 Apr 2009 14:41

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
2) Having printed the track plan to pdf I notice that there are of course no chair details shown (as opposed to the templates provided by the likes of Brian at C&L). Being a novice when it comes to track building and knowledge of the permanent way what is the best approach when it comes to deciding and detailing the appropriate chairs required to build the trackwork?
Hi Paul,

For REA bullhead turnouts there is some information on the Templot web site at:

  http://templot.com/prototype_info.php#chairing_info

For V-crossings the special chairs are identified Z  Y  X  A  B  C  D  etc., the A chair being under the blunt nose of the crossing. These identification letters are included in the timber numbering on Templot templates.

For switches, the count of slide chairs and block chairs is as given in the table.

Elsewhere in the turnout ordinary S1 chairs are used, unless two are so close together that there isn't room, in which case one or both is changed to an L1 "bridge" chair:


chairing_patterns.gifchairing_patterns.gif

Exact details vary by prototype and period.

You can get a good idea of the arrangements by looking at the Exactoscale P4 kit templates, which are available on the Exactoscale web site at e.g.

 Exactoscale P4 B8 template

They are excellent detailed drawings -- zoom in to 400% or more to see the full detail, as above.

regards,

Martin.
Last edited on 1 Apr 2018 10:23 by Martin Wynne
posted: 6 Apr 2009 14:56

from:

Roger Henry
 
Brisbane - Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
  I would also agree that ballasting should be put off untill your layout is firmly bedded down. I have built a largish, N Scale, layout and it took me nearly a year to work out the various bugs in the layout. Some were mechanical, others were operational, and a few were just 'add-ons' but none of the deficiencies were obvious to me at the time. OK parts of it I did ballast where there was no chance of a change but the rest I left bare. So whether it is Peco track or hand laid, digging it up out of the ballast isn't a 'good thing'.

Roger

posted: 6 Apr 2009 16:02

from:

Templot User
 
Posted By Email

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
----- from Mike Johnson -----

Raymond wrote:
I assume you are going to soak your track bases in dilute pipe weld so that the butanone has something to key to. I have found that this is best done after staining but leave the weathering until the rails are in place so it all has continuity.

I've just got some of the laser cut timbers but not tried sticking chairs to them yet.

What is "pipe weld" and what do you dilute it with ?

Mike Johnson

posted: 6 Apr 2009 16:27

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Mike wrote:
What is "pipe weld" and what do you dilute it with
I've never bothered with that, personally.  Just gluing the chairs to the ply sleepers with butanone gives a joint strong enough to break the chair before the chair breaks from the sleeper.  ISTR there was an article in MRJ a while back that went to great lengths to prove that, but I've also found it from my own experience.

Cheers

posted: 6 Apr 2009 16:32

from:

Raymond
 
Bexhill-on-sea - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Templot User wrote:
----- from Mike Johnson -----

I've just got some of the laser cut timbers but not tried sticking chairs to them yet.

What is "pipe weld" and what do you dilute it with ?

Mike Johnson
It is the stuff plumbers use to cement plastic pipe.  It has a shelf life too so don't buy lots in one go.  I dilute it in butanone.  However, the late lamented Bernard Weller proposed masking off the sleepers where no chairs were to go and painting the stuff directly on to the wood.  I've tried it and it works but is a lot more fiddly that the soak method and much slower.

The method is based upon an article in, I think, MRJ some years ago describing the construction of Bernard's and his successor's track.  I think it permeates the timber better and then give a stronger joint withh the chair.  That though, is probably academic as some tests with ABS chairs glued to wood proved that the jaws of the chair will fail before the joint with the wood.

Hope that helps

Regards

Raymond

posted: 6 Apr 2009 18:16

from:

Brian Tulley
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Raymond wrote:
I assume you are going to soak your track bases in dilute pipe weld so that the butanone has something to key to. I have found that this is best done after staining but leave the weathering until the rails are in place so it all has continuity.
Hi All,

A good source of Butanone (which is MEK - Methyl Ethyl Ketone) are Plumber's Merchants. The stuff to ask for is:

Polypipe Pipe Cleaner CF250 (used for the cleaning of ABS and PVC Pipe and Fittings).

I bought some a few weeks ago (250ml) for £4-70, which is a fraction of the price you'd normally pay for the same stuff from a model shop. It also comes in a nice wide base plastic container which is much harder to knock over than the normal glass bottle!

No connections with Polypipe etc.

HTH

Best Regards,

Brian

posted: 6 Apr 2009 19:42

from:

Templot User
 
Posted By Email

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
----- from Andrew Jukes -----

Martin Wynne wrote:
You can get a good idea of the arrangements by looking at the Exactoscale P4 kit templates, which are available on the Exactoscale web site at e.g.

 Exactoscale P4 B8 template

They are excellent detailed drawings -- zoom in to 400% or more to see the full detail, as above.

To avoid possible confusion, the drawings come directly from the computer models used to produce the 4mm scale mouldings in the Exactoscale/P4Track Co. kits - so although as close to scale as possible, they contain some compromises, in particular, where there is an etch below the switch or crossing assembly to hold the pre-assembled unit together.

The chairs used on the slips include not just the special obtuse crossing and slip chairs and the normal S1 and L1 chairs but also the small footprint M1 chair. A scale length slide (P) chair is also now being produced.

Regards

Andrew Jukes

posted: 7 Apr 2009 03:47

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks for all the very welcome comments and feedback - most appreciated as usual.

I will take on board the comments around having everything working for several months before ballasting as this appears to be most wise counsel indeed. Particularly given that there is a significant amount of DCC related technologies to incorporate into this project including signalling and cosmetic point rodding and the like.

I had not come across the PVC pipe cement in relation to the glued chairs before and had read plenty about the chair failing before the naked MEK bond to the timber. I guess the only way to go would be to do a couple of small tests to see. I imagine that the grain (or lack thereof) on the plywood would also be a contibuting factor as to how well the chairs stick. My stuff I use is bright red though. Would that lose most of its colour once diluted? What ratio for dilution of it with MEK should be done? All very science experiment like. Definitely a job for outside too from memory last time I used the stuff it gave off a real pong!

I have emailed you the box file Martin so if you can create A2 size pdf file that would be excellent as I have access to an internal printing firm where I work (gotta love an oil company hey!).

I notice all of the chair designations along the side of the trackplan so that should put things right then.

Thanks all,

Paul.

posted: 7 Apr 2009 10:27

from:

Andy G
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul,
I'll put my hand up as another who just uses butanone to fix Exactoscale chairs directly to the ply sleepers.  I've never hand an issue with failures.  I did ask Bernard about their stated requirement to pre-treat the timbers and he said whilst only applying butanone might work for most people they had to cater for those who were going to use it in extreme temperatures or where there was a large variation in temperatures, e.g. a loft.  Whether this is true or a case of Bernard being over cautious I don't know.

Andy

posted: 8 Apr 2009 13:40

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I guess the question that springs to mind tonight following a telephone conversation with Mike P is whether the Exactoscale chairs and the C&L chairs made from the same plastic? Do I get a more realistic set of chairs in my particular case from the ES versus the CL products? This is purely a what if question not a debate as to one versus another mind you.

posted: 8 Apr 2009 14:39

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

C&L chairs come in 2 varieties slide rail and running rail chair. You'll have to adapt some of the running rail chairs to suit.

Exactoscale have a slightly larger range though not all are suitable for 00-SF.

Many of the special chairs are only available in the P4 turnout kits.

If you want to see some pictures of Exactoscale chairs you'll find some on http://www.wizardmodels.co.uk

As far as I know both makes are made from ABS, the main differences in appearance are colour and size (Exactoscale are slightly smaller and a lighter shade of brown/rust).

Stephen
http://www.borg-rail.com

posted: 8 Apr 2009 15:42

from:

Peter_Hirons
 
Ireland

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Borg-Rail wrote:
As far as I know both makes are made from ABS, the main differences in appearance are colour and size (Exactoscale are slightly smaller and a lighter shade of brown/rust).


So which are correct?  They can't both be true scale if they are different sizes.

 

Peter

posted: 8 Apr 2009 16:03

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

I think that probably neither are 'true to scale' in that both probably have made compromises to aid in production. I'm not sure which is closest. The chair jaws part on the Exactoscale chair are smaller but the baseplate part (if that's the correct terminology) is bigger.

I have used the bridge chairs from Exactoscale and running rail chairs from C&L on a project before now, once painted you won't be able to tell the difference.

More importantly in 7mm scale terms for those of GW persuasion C&L do the correct slide rail chairs but Exactoscale don't. (I'm sure a lot of 4mm scale GW fans would be pleased to see the equivalent in their scale but as it hasn't happened yet I'm not holding my breathe).

As far as fixing the chairs to plywood, I prefer Zap's Plastizap.


posted: 8 Apr 2009 16:10

from:

Alan Turner
 
Dudley - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Peter_Hirons wrote:
So which are correct?  They can't both be true scale if they are different sizes.

Peter
They both can be. It depends on the prototype being modelled.

Alan

posted: 8 Apr 2009 16:11

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Peter_Hirons wrote:
So which are correct? They can't both be true scale if they are different sizes.
Hi Peter,

Prototype chairs vary in size and shape quite a bit. There are some pictures of different types in the right-hand column on this Scalefour Soc. page (click small pics to enlarge):

http://www.scalefour.org/resources/track.htm

regards,

Martin.

posted: 8 Apr 2009 16:22

from:

Peter_Hirons
 
Ireland

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
They both can be. It depends on the prototype being modelled.

Alan
OK, point (no pun intended) taken.

I model LMS/Early BR in LMS area so I'm looking at the S1 3-bolt type. Are they the same size from each supplier?

Peter

posted: 8 Apr 2009 18:25

from:

richard_t
 
Nr. Spalding, South Holland - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I think it's perhaps best to stick with one supplier. I have gone for C&L rail as I like their NiHi rail - I haven't seen Exacto's rail so I can't comment (and they don't seem to attend many 7mm exhibitions.) But I've gone for Exacto's chairs and fishplates. My reasoning, which may well be wrong, is that the moulds could be newer and therefore the definition of the chairs better. But I've had to take a fair bit off the inside of the fishplates to accomodate C&L rail, and I think I'm going to have a problem with gaps between the chairs and the rails when I get to that stage. I think I'm going to have to apply some Mek to soften the chairs and push them into the rails unless anyone else has any ideas.

Richard.

posted: 8 Apr 2009 21:31

from:

Andy G
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
richard_t wrote:
But I've had to take a fair bit off the inside of the fishplates to accomodate C&L rail, and I think I'm going to have a problem with gaps between the chairs and the rails when I get to that stage. I think I'm going to have to apply some Mek to soften the chairs and push them into the rails unless anyone else has any ideas.

Richard.
With the 4mm chairs I file the end of the rail, not to a knife edge but so that chamfered surfaces are presented to the chair opening, thus easing the opening out rather than trying to barge through.  The chairs have a good grip on the rail, you don't want them loose as it will be a pain to lay them correctly spaced, plus the gauge will then wobble in and out as the rail moves in the chairs, may or may not be significant.

Andy

posted: 8 Apr 2009 22:06

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
richard_t wrote:
I think it's perhaps best to stick with one supplier.
Think you're right. I don't normally dabble in 4mm, but a couple of years ago had cause to try some 4mm Exactoscale chairs, and found that you really needed to use Exactoscale rail with them. Rail does vary, and it's important to use the rail for which chairs have been designed. If you're using C&L NiHi rail,  then I reckon using C&L chairs as well is a good idea, in 4mm or 7mm.

cheers
Nigel

posted: 8 Apr 2009 22:13

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I've used all C+L rail with exactoscale chairs, no problems there. I incured Brians rath (again) a while ago on the 00-sf yahoo group for expressing the opinion that exactoscale chairs were stronger than the C+L chairs and that I prefered the exactoscale chairs, he replied saying that his product was a closer to scale representation than the exactoscale product. The only rail you should avoid with either product is SMP rail as that has a narrower width and therefore moves quite significantly between the chairs.

Also the comment about not all products are suitable for SF, only applies to check rail chairs as these are designed solely for P4/S4 flangeways.

posted: 8 Apr 2009 22:46

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
richard_t wrote:
I think it's perhaps best to stick with one supplier. I have gone for C&L rail as I like their NiHi rail - I haven't seen Exacto's rail so I can't comment (and they don't seem to attend many 7mm exhibitions.) But I've gone for Exacto's chairs and fishplates. My reasoning, which may well be wrong, is that the moulds could be newer and therefore the definition of the chairs better.

Now comparisons of varying manufacturer's products are something for the users to ponder upon and for the manufacturers to stand back from. However, I will comment that the age of a mould is no indicator of quality, crispness or whatever.

I am sure all users of plastic injection moulding tooling have their tools maintained as required. As far as C+L is concerned, we have a rolling programme of maintenance and refurbishment. In recent years I have spent in excess of £20,000 - probably more, on tool maintenance. Currently our P4 track tool is being fully refurbished.

Regards

Brian Lewis
C+L Finescale.

posted: 9 Apr 2009 10:21

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

As far  as I can tell there is no discernible difference in rail section with C&L and Exactoscale.

Check rails yes, but you forget the sleepers which are of course of scale lengths and therefore not suitable for any type of 00 (I exclude of course the FastTrack bases for 16.5 but then again the question relates to 00-SF so they won't do either and in any case they are plastic).

Don't agree about the strength though, my experience is that C&L are stronger.

Most people ask me to use C&L, presumably because they want to use the flexi-track but if you want proper bridge chairs then you have to use the Exactoscale ones. Block chairs and the other special chairs at the moment are only available in the P4 point kits.

davelong wrote:
I've used all C+L rail with exactoscale chairs, no problems there. I incured Brians rath (again) a while ago on the 00-sf yahoo group for expressing the opinion that exactoscale chairs were stronger than the C+L chairs and that I prefered the exactoscale chairs, he replied saying that his product was a closer to scale representation than the exactoscale product. The only rail you should avoid with either product is SMP rail as that has a narrower width and therefore moves quite significantly between the chairs.

Also the comment about not all products are suitable for SF, only applies to check rail chairs as these are designed solely for P4/S4 flangeways.


posted: 9 Apr 2009 10:34

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Are yes but sleepers are easily cut down to size, unless your using the C+L concrete sleepers. I used the sleeper sizes that Martin has bundled with the 00-SF templates in templot and they look really good. A pain to cut all the sleepers down but worth it.

Actually the fast track bases are closer to SF than 16.5 if you ask me. I've tried a number of sections of fasttrack bases in code 75 and the concrete code 82 and they both were quite under gauge. Found this out by accident really, as the Kadee height gauge is designed to fit 16.5 track so obviously wouldn't fit SF track so a fasttrack yard was lying around so grabbed that to use but the gauge wouldn't fit that either so I tried a SF roller gauge on it and it fitted, tightly but it fitted with little effort.

Dave

posted: 9 Apr 2009 10:43

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Borg-Rail wrote:
As far  as I can tell there is no discernible difference in rail section with C&L and Exactoscale.
I think it's like the supermarket own brands -- it all comes out of the same machine. :)

(Although SMP rail is obviously different -- at least I thought so until I read this from Brian Lewis earlier in this topic: "My records show that 3-4 times in the past I have sold 20-40 kgs of rail to Marc Weaver, (Marcway & SMP), when he unexpectedly run out and could not wait 8-10 weeks for fresh supplies."). Perhaps that was before Marcway took SMP over.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 9 Apr 2009 11:50

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
I think it's like the supermarket own brands -- it all comes out of the same machine. :)

(Although SMP rail is obviously different -- at least I thought so until I read this from Brian Lewis earlier in this topic: "My records show that 3-4 times in the past I have sold 20-40 kgs of rail to Marc Weaver, (Marcway & SMP), when he unexpectedly run out and could not wait 8-10 weeks for fresh supplies."). Perhaps that was before Marcway took SMP over.
Hi Martin,

The rail I supplied Marcway was all code 125. At another time, I needed some code 75 FB - a size that I do not normally stock and Marc let me have 10kgs. I could check to see how it measures against our code 75 BH, but really that will not tell you anything.

Supermarket own brands? Not necessarily. There are 3 different manufacturers in Europe, so there is an element of variation.

Arguments about 'which is best',  really are a waste of time. The thing to be pleased about is that you have a choice. And on that basis you are free to decide which is most appropriate for you.

Regards

Brian Lewis

posted: 9 Apr 2009 12:32

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Borg-Rail wrote:
Check rails yes, but you forget the sleepers which are of course of scale lengths and therefore not suitable for any type of 00
Don't see this. 8'6" sleepers used for 00 are, proportionately, more or less equivalent to 9' sleepers used with scale track, and to my eye look fine. 00 is always going to be a compromise, and it's really a matter of personal preference as to which way that compromise is slewed.

cheers
Nigel

posted: 9 Apr 2009 12:52

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Nigel Brown wrote
Don't see this. 8'6" sleepers used for 00 are, proportionately, more or less equivalent to 9' sleepers used with scale track, and to my eye look fine. 00 is always going to be a compromise, and it's really a matter of personal preference as to which way that compromise is slewed.

Yes, but 00 sleepers are 8ft long, not 8ft 6in.

Regards

Brian Lewis

posted: 9 Apr 2009 12:56

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hmm... won't match up with flexitrack (C&L or SMP) though and 00-SF is 16.2mm... plus what if your prototype is 8ft 6ins...? Perhaps EM or P4 have some advantages:D? Of course you could always go HO:D
Nigel Brown wrote:
Borg-Rail wrote:
Check rails yes, but you forget the sleepers which are of course of scale lengths and therefore not suitable for any type of 00
Don't see this. 8'6" sleepers used for 00 are, proportionately, more or less equivalent to 9' sleepers used with scale track, and to my eye look fine. 00 is always going to be a compromise, and it's really a matter of personal preference as to which way that compromise is slewed.

cheers
Nigel


posted: 9 Apr 2009 13:01

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Lewis wrote:
Yes, but 00 sleepers are 8ft long, not 8ft 6in.
Hi Brian,

It's true that the BRMSB 00 standard has 8ft (32mm) sleepers for 00 (and Templot does that by default).

I think the point Nigel is making, is that 00 track on 8ft-6in sleepers looks to have similar sleeper ends to P4 pre-grouping track on 9ft sleepers. For the traditional bullhead era, that might be a better compromise than having the increased spacing between double-track sleeper ends, which is the effect you get with 8ft sleepers in 00.

For the modern modeller, 9ft sleepers are long gone, so the argument doesn't arise.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 9 Apr 2009 14:22

from:

Ashley
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Lewis wrote:
I am sure all users of plastic injection moulding tooling have their tools maintained as required. As far as C+L is concerned, we have a rolling programme of maintenance and refurbishment. In recent years I have spent in excess of £20,000 - probably more, on tool maintenance. Currently our P4 track tool is being fully refurbished.

Excellent. Just out of interest, will you be expanding you range of chair types? I imagine that selling turnout chairs, especially GWR pattern, might well have a ready market given that the P4TCo seem not to have any inclination to sell their sprues separately.

--
Ashley

posted: 9 Apr 2009 14:36

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
OK here is a photo of some C&L and Exactoscale chairs, The C&L ones are the darker brown.
chairs.jpgchairs.jpg

The one to the left is the C&L 4 bolt, the 2 in the middle S1 and the righthand one is the Exactoscale Bridge Chair. I think the bolt detail on the C&L chairs is slightly better and the key detail on the Exactoscale is slightly better but given the photo is somewhat larger than life....

The choice is yours.


Peter_Hirons wrote:
They both can be. It depends on the prototype being modelled.

Alan
OK, point (no pun intended) taken.

I model LMS/Early BR in LMS area so I'm looking at the S1 3-bolt type. Are they the same size from each supplier?

Peter


posted: 9 Apr 2009 14:45

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Ashley wrote:
Excellent. Just out of interest, will you be expanding you range of chair types? I imagine that selling turnout chairs, especially GWR pattern, might well have a ready market given that the P4TCo seem not to have any inclination to sell their sprues separately.

I do not think so Ashley - and you will understand I will not be drawn into commenting about another company's sales policy.

When so much remains uncovered, it seems absurd to duplicate what is already freely available.

Regards

Brian Lewis
Carrs - C+L Finescale

posted: 9 Apr 2009 15:09

from:

Peter_Hirons
 
Ireland

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
They look close enough to me, although I'd probably try not to mix them on the same piece of track.

I suspect that there must have some variation in the prototype over the years and in different areas.

Peter

posted: 9 Apr 2009 15:55

from:

Ashley
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Lewis wrote:
I do not think so Ashley - and you will understand I will not be drawn into commenting about another company's sales policy.
Not wanting you to comment, or expecting you to comment on their sales policy, it was just a statement of fact that seemed to me to leave a market opportunity open for someone else. Not necessarily you.

When so much remains uncovered, it seems absurd to duplicate what is already freely available.
Yes but, I was thinking GWR style plastic turnout chairs, where there is no duplication.

--
Ashley

posted: 21 May 2009 07:39

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Well, final iteration of the layout design is now completed and has been emailed for laser cutting.

I will report progress if folk are interested.

posted: 22 Jul 2009 12:57

from:

Mike Pogson
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Here are a few images of the Laser cut track bases for Pauls layout.

463_220740_380000000.jpg463_220740_380000000.jpg463_220740_400000002.jpg463_220740_400000002.jpg

463_220740_390000001.jpg463_220740_390000001.jpg

Things mostly went without a hitch. I did have to manually edit the webbing arrangements around some of the interleaved timbers, since the normal webbing clipped the ends.

Regards

Mike Pogson




posted: 22 Jul 2009 14:59

from:

Raymond
 
Bexhill-on-sea - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Mike,

Might I have copies of some of those pictures to include in the related page on my website?

Regards

Raymond

posted: 25 Jul 2009 12:29

from:

Mike Pogson
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Raymond wrote:
Hi Mike,

Might I have copies of some of those pictures to include in the related page on my website?

Regards

Raymond

No problem Raymond, I have emailed them to you.

regards

Mike


posted: 29 Jul 2009 09:20

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Wow. Can't wait to see them in the flesh. We have also concocted some rail alignment jigs to help with placement of the stock rail from which all can be gauged from.

posted: 31 Jul 2009 10:52

from:

BruceNordstrand
 
Riverstone, NSW - Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Mike Pogson wrote:
Here are a few images of the Laser cut track bases for Pauls layout.

463_220740_380000000.jpg463_220740_380000000.jpg463_220740_400000002.jpg463_220740_400000002.jpg

463_220740_390000001.jpg463_220740_390000001.jpg

Things mostly went without a hitch. I did have to manually edit the webbing arrangements around some of the interleaved timbers, since the normal webbing clipped the ends.

Regards

Mike Pogson



Mike

Did you receive the email I sent regarding pricing to have this done? Sent over a week ago...

Cheers
Bruce

posted: 31 Jul 2009 14:39

from:

Mike Pogson
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

BruceNordstrand wrote:
Mike

Did you receive the email I sent regarding pricing to have this done? Sent over a week ago...

Cheers
Bruce


Hi Bruce,

Yes email received last Sunday. I wasn't able to look at it until Tuesday, I was in Sydney for a couple of days.

I have downloaded your box file, and also read over your previous threads to familiarise myself with your project. I see no problem. I was a bit surprised at the 'packing density' of timbering on US track (which I am not at all familiar with). I note that you have previously laid Fasttracks bases for this layout which as I understand come pre-drilled for spikes. Is this a requirement?

I will be contacting you over the weekend.

Best regards

Mike

posted: 31 Jul 2009 15:14

from:

BruceNordstrand
 
Riverstone, NSW - Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Mike

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry if I sounded a little impatient, I did not intend to be, am just frustrated with my ISP at the moment and the many emails that have disappeared into the ether. I look forward to your contact whenever you can. On the question of spike holes, no they wouldn't be required. I was using the FT bases purely for the ability to lay out the turnouts and the spike holes were just a bonus. I added quite a few spikes to certain turnouts where hole were not present.

The box file is mainly for reference only, I will be totally redoing it and including timber shoving etc. I may also change the track tie (timber) spacing to branchline spacing which is fewer ties per foot. I am doing this because my RR is a "backwoods" branch into the mountains, a fair distance from the mainline. I am also having the coke oven end redesigned to fit better with my intended staging yard on the opposite side of the garage.

My apologies to the original poster for cluttering up your thread. I'll move any further discussion to my own thread in the future...

Cheers
Bruce

posted: 7 Aug 2009 08:44

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Couple of queries now I have received the sleepers. First is how should or ore stain them and if I do will it affect the bond strength of the chairs mek secured to the sleepers?

posted: 7 Aug 2009 09:53

from:

Raymond
 
Bexhill-on-sea - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Couple of queries now I have received the sleepers. First is how should or ore stain them and if I do will it affect the bond strength of the chairs mek secured to the sleepers?
Any good wood dye will do or dilute paint, I have used both.  It makes no difference to the strength of the bond I have found.  There was an article (MRJ I think) on the use of wooden sleepers using dyes and solvents to ready them for using butanone for fixing the chairs.  However, the view now seems to be that the solvent is not necessary if you use a good sloshing of butanone.

Regards

Raymond

posted: 8 Aug 2009 18:10

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just to say that Paul is writing about this project on Model Rail Forum at:

http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8289&view=findpost&p=99706

It's looking good, Paul. :thumb:

Martin.

posted: 21 Jun 2010 07:12

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi all,

I am tackling the track laying but need to work out what the Vee angles are so I can use the most appropriate jig to file up the vees. Is there an easy way to ascertain this angle for each point?

Photos to come of stained timbers and stock rail alignment jigs.

posted: 21 Jun 2010 16:25

from:

Jim Guthrie
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
I am tackling the track laying but need to work out what the Vee angles are so I can use the most appropriate jig to file up the vees. Is there an easy way to ascertain this angle for each point?
Paul,

Just get a turnout into into control by deleting/wiping/copying and make sure the information panel is showing - toggle it on and off with F2.  The header of the information box shows the crossing angle or you can "expand" the box and the crossing size in Right Angle Measurement (RAM) or  Centre Line Measurement (CLM) is given in the text of the information box.   You can also print out just the template to check out your crossing angle.

Jim.

posted: 21 Jun 2010 16:38

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
I am tackling the track laying but need to work out what the Vee angles are so I can use the most appropriate jig to file up the vees. Is there an easy way to ascertain this angle for each point?
Hi Paul,

If you used Templot to design the plan, you should know the crossing angles. :)

For example a B-7 turnout has a 1:7 crossing angle, and so on.

If you click on a template, and then on the top item on its menu, you will see all the template info:


2_211132_120000000.png2_211132_120000000.png

displays this:

2_211133_270000000.png2_211133_270000000.png


You can also select the template in the storage box and see the crossing angle directly, or click the info button for the full info:

2_211135_410000000.png2_211135_410000000.png


edit: or as Jim explained, you can do copy to the control, and see the details in the info panel. You can get your previous control template back by doing CTRL+U undo changes.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Jun 2010 06:27

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks Jim and Martin. I have done the wipe and it worked well telling me that I had a B7 turnout. I have then looked at the Exactoscale track plans to ascertain what chair types I should have. I have a heap of C&L chairs and will use those for the practice slab to see how they go with chopping to suit the special chairs. By the way, Raymond designed this in Templot, not me which is why I had to ask silly questions!

posted: 26 Jun 2010 06:43

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Work continuing on the practice slab of laser cut track for my layout. Managed to get some proper black ink as opposed to fountain pen black ink which is actually dark purple and I was never happy with the colouring. This colour is as close as I was able to come to a weathered timber appearance after studying local timber sleepers at my train station which definitely had very dark coloured sleepers with a hint of warmth even when the sleepers are not wet - not often are they dry in Melbourne at this time of year! For those interested the mix is 20ml water, 20 drops of ink 1ml of isopropyl alcohol and 2 drops of red ink out of a syringe.

4726902125_d55340df03.jpg4726902125_d55340df03.jpg

Mike Pogson had created some rail positioning templates to assist with the initial layout of the straight stock rail from which the other components can be gauged into position.

4727488578_449ec29727.jpg4727488578_449ec29727.jpg

These templates are positioned using small pieces to align the template within the sleepers and are pinned together using standard 1/8" axles.

4726850161_7a96fc2b04.jpg4726850161_7a96fc2b04.jpg

The templates are layered to allow space for the plastic chairs to fit underneath. you can see the small pieces used to fit within specific sleeper spaces.

4726856255_726c6f60b1.jpg4726856255_726c6f60b1.jpg

You can see each of the parts that make up a template here. I marked them to aid positioning.

4726895479_6aeb0c0403.jpg4726895479_6aeb0c0403.jpg

This process is a trial. At this stage we have not made these for the remainder of the layout but will see if they speed up track laying. The difficult part is actually working out all the different types of chairs that need to be used and where they go as the standard chairs need to be threaded on the rail before sticking them to the sleepers with MEK (methyl ethyl ketone or Butanol as it is called by the trade).

posted: 26 Jun 2010 12:16

from:

JFS
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just to note that Methyl Ethyl Ketone is also known as Butanone ( CH3C(O)CH2CH3 )

Butanol (C4H9OH) is something quite different and would not work at all!

An alternative and slightly more powerful solvent would be Dichloromethane (DCM or methylene chloride) CH2Cl2.


I will be very interested to hear how all these rail templates work, in particular, how accurate the guage will be by comparison with the use of more conventional track guages.

Best Regards,

Howard.

posted: 26 Jun 2010 12:48

from:

JFS
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just to note that Methyl Ethyl Ketone is also known as Butanone ( CH3C(O)CH2CH3 )

Butanol (C4H9OH) is something quite different and would not work at all!

An alternative and slightly more powerful solvent would be Dichloromethane (DCM or methylene chloride) CH2Cl2.


I will be very interested to hear how all these rail templates work, in particular, how accurate the guage will be by comparison with the use of more conventional track guages.

Best Regards,

Howard.

posted: 27 Jun 2010 06:20

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Sorry for the typo Howard!

Perhaps some one can assist. I am trying to work out which way my chairs should be keyed given that this is a running in both directions trackwork scenario. I understand that the keys near joins should be chaired away from the joint but can't discern which was the rest of the chairs should go.

posted: 27 Jun 2010 11:09

from:

JFS
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
As a general rule, the keys point to resist the traction forces so that the rail creep would tend to tighten the chairs up - that is the keys point against the direction of travel where trains brake and with the direction of travel where trains accelerate. Where there are gradients, the keys point up-hill. But these are only general rules - in practice, if the gangers found that the keys fell out, then they would reverse them: in difficult situations they might key alternate chairs to oppose each other. You are right about keys at rail joints - this allows the sleepers to be spaced as close as possible.
Hope that helps.

Howard.

posted: 27 Jun 2010 23:48

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
JFS wrote:

I will be very interested to hear how all these rail templates work, in particular, how accurate the guage will be by comparison with the use of more conventional track guages.

Best Regards,

Howard.


Just to reclarify, the alignment jigs shown in the above images are not track gauges. They will be used to set the stock rail and then everything gauged off of that.

posted: 27 Jun 2010 23:52

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
JFS wrote:
As a general rule, the keys point to resist the traction forces so that the rail creep would tend to tighten the chairs up - that is the keys point against the direction of travel where trains brake and with the direction of travel where trains accelerate. Where there are gradients, the keys point up-hill. But these are only general rules - in practice, if the gangers found that the keys fell out, then they would reverse them: in difficult situations they might key alternate chairs to oppose each other. You are right about keys at rail joints - this allows the sleepers to be spaced as close as possible.
Hope that helps.

Howard.


So on a single track with running in both direction with no gradient were they all installed the same way, random way or some one way and the rest the other way?

posted: 28 Jun 2010 22:37

from:

JFS
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I you think about how things work on a single track, even with (obviously) bi-directional working, the traction forces *generally* work the same way - the trains leaving a station for example, will be accelerating, those arriving will be braking. In both cases, the forces act towards the station so the keys will point away from it. Away from sations (a rare circumstance on models) unless you are modeling the fens, level track is quite rare. So in most situations there is some logic to drive things (or at least to silence your critics!)
Regards,

Howard.

posted: 29 Jun 2010 00:16

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Perhaps some one can assist. I am trying to work out which way my chairs should be keyed given that this is a running in both directions trackwork scenario.
Hi Paul,

There are no hard and fast rules, except the one that states that if keys keep falling out one way, you try them the other way. :)

A well known rule of thumb was "towards the station, towards the river, and towards the joint".

i.e. that's the direction in which the keys were driven into place. This means that part of the key remains protruding from the chair in the opposite direction.

This rule allows for rail creep in braking and acceleration zones, downhill on gradients, and at joints it's the only practical way when the fishplate fills the space between the chairs.

We've been here before -- some more notes from me at: 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=235701#p235701

and similar topics:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15120

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=49371

regards,

Martin.

posted: 29 Jun 2010 10:54

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Somewhere back in the mists of time I seem to remember claims that the "towards the joint" bit meant that on a plain track panel, all other things being equal, one half of the panel would be pointing one way and one half the other, for bi-directional single track. How true this was I haven't the faintest, but in the absence of info to the contrary it's one way of doing things.

Cheers
Nigel

posted: 6 Aug 2010 14:16

from:

Jerry
 
Mansfield, Notts - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just a warning dichloromethane (DCM), aka methylene chloride is not very pleasant either

That is why the EU are banning paint strippers based on DCM
see  the EU website at
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/236&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN

Also the EU classification for DCM looks like this -
Annex I Index#  :   602-004-00-3
Substance Name in Annex 1  :  602-004-00-3
  Dichloromethane
  Methylene chloride

Classification  :   Carc. Cat. 3; R40
Risk Phrases  : 
 R40 : Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect.
 S2 : Keep out of the reach of children.
 S23 : Do not breathe gas/fumes/vapour/spray

 S24/25 : Avoid contact with skin and eyes.
 S36/37 : Wear suitable protective clothing and gloves.
Indication(s) of Danger  :   logoX.giflogoX.gif

 Xn : Harmful

so you can see the possible carcinogenic effect.

Is such a recommendation to move from MEK to DCM such a good idea?
Even if you want it where could you buy it?



posted: 6 Aug 2010 15:49

from:

Phil O
 
Plymouth - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi

Even if you want it where could you buy it?

You can purchase DCM as Plastic Weld at about £2.50 for 57ml from most model shops or as I did from Reagent

http://www.reagent.co.uk/dichloromethane.html

2.5L for about £32 delivered

Cheers Phil
Last edited on 6 Aug 2010 15:50 by Phil O
posted: 7 Aug 2010 14:52

from:

JFS
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Jerry,

Some perspective on this might be helpful - in truth, the warning for MEK is not so different from the one you have quoted for DCM.

With all Chlorinated HCs, liver toxicity is the big issue and both MEK and DCM are at well at the low end of the spectrum for this. You will see that the potential EU ban is NOT on DCM - it is on its use as a PAINT STRIPPER and I think the issue here relates to potentially using it in confined spaces, in large quantities spread thinly over large areas creating an unacceptabe vapour density - but this is not the use we are talking about.
Just because something has a warning does not necessarily mean it is harmful FOR OUR PURPOSES - These days, EVERYTHING carries a warning and the purpose of these is to inform though too often they create panic.

One of my issues with these catch-all "Warnings" is that they mask REAL issues. There are three Categories for carcinogens for example: Cat 1 - proven to cause cancer in humans. Cat 2 proven to cause cancer in some animal studies. Cat 3 Limited evidence of cancer risk.
As you noted, DCM is Cat 3 - that means(given humanity's lengthy experience with it) that it is not a carcinogen. BUT petrol by contrast, contains a lot of benzene which is just about as Cat. 1 as it is possible to get (just remember that the next time you smell petrol at a filling station). On this basis,I would definately have petrol banned immediately given that Diesel exists as a "suitable alternative". [I wonder why it has not been banned? I wonder why we invaded Iraq?]

The reason I tend to use DCM for ABS is that MEK is relatively ineffective - I find that DCM will attack the base of the chair sufficient to get a bond much quicker, using much less solvent.

My source for it is Plastic Weld as Phil mentions.

In our use, I would treat BOTH DCM and MEK in exactly the same way - keep the area very well ventilated with airflow drawing vapour away from you.

By the way, in my ideal world, everything would be solderable!!

Best Regards,

Howard.

posted: 7 Aug 2010 16:54

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Nonsense.

MEK is better than DCM by far.  The reason being that the latter flashes off too quickly.  MEK is more slow to flash off ands so 'solves' more of the plastic 'skins', resulting in a stronger bond.

Smells nicer too.... :-)

Regards

Brian Lewis

JFS wrote

The reason I tend to use DCM for ABS is that MEK is relatively ineffective - I find that DCM will attack the base of the chair sufficient to get a bond much quicker, using much less solvent.


Howard.


posted: 7 Aug 2010 18:11

from:

JFS
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Clearly Brian, we have different expectations of what "good" is - the slower flash is exactly the reason that MEK softens the chair as I said. I have used BOTH (and still use both for different things) and I made my own mind up - others can do the same.

So to me, your response is nonsense.

Howard.

posted: 7 Aug 2010 18:35

from:

JFS
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
... sorry Brian, I accidentally hit the send button before I had finished. I meant to add....

But at least you are consistent with what you say on your website, and I know that you sell both.

I do agree about the smell though.:thumb:


Best Regards,

Howard.

posted: 7 Aug 2010 18:48

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Well...... yes......... but it is not about being consistent - it is about being right.

As you say, I sell both, so it should not matter to me which one folk buy.  But when you have built as much trackwork as I have, you know which is preferable.

And I know which of the two the professional track builders use.

Regards

Brian Lewis

JFS wrote:
... sorry Brian, I accidentally hit the send button before I had finished. I meant to add....

But at least you are consistent with what you say on your website, and I know that you sell both.

I do agree about the smell though.:thumb:


Best Regards,

Howard.


posted: 7 Aug 2010 19:06

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Depends what you're looking for. I like Plastic Weld, partly for the reason quoted, that it acts fast, also it seems to slip easily between chair and sleeper, that so only a dab is needed. It also sets quicker. A nice thing (for me who likes to be able to alter or fine-tune trackwork) is that a sharp blade inserted between chair and sleeper is normally sufficient to detach the two. I can see, however, that it's not necessarily the choice of those to whom robustness is a prime consideration.



Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > The next steps once I have the laser cut timber sleepers
about Templot Club

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.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems