!!

Not Registered?

Welcome!  Please register to view all of the new posts and forum boards - some of which are hidden to guests.  After registering and gaining 10 posts you will be able to sell and buy items on our N'porium.

If you have any problems registering, then please check your spam filter before emailing us.  Hotmail users seem to find their emails in the Junk folder.


Thanks for reading,
The NGF Staff.

Author Topic: Tighter track standards for N gauge?  (Read 2084 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Izzy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Tighter track standards for N gauge?
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2018, 08:02:25 am »
While you donít have to use chair plates to join up handbuilt code 40 to either easitrac or finetrax I find it looks better because you otherwise need to raise the former by that 10 thou and so the sleepers sit slightly higher. Daft as it may seem I found this easily showed and stood out too much for my liking.

Izzy

Online Atso

  • Advertiser
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1618
  • Country: 00
    • Awards
Re: Tighter track standards for N gauge?
« Reply #46 on: June 10, 2018, 08:52:16 am »
I saw that on another forum, nice work and very impressive for a first attempt.  There are few things more satisfying than building a turnout and finding that a wagon will actually roll through it. I know you are very familiar with CAD drawing, but if you can get to grips with Templot you will find you can knock out custom pointwork templates in no time.  Just don't try using it for layout design or you will be driven mad.

Richard

Thanks Richard, nobody is more surprise that a wagon will roll through my turnout than I! It is amazingly satisfying. Believe it or not I downloaded Templot and found it drove me insane! As the turnouts are for the fiddle yard (Finetrax for the scenic bit), I'm going to stick with the 12 inch radius one that I've designed now - although I do have a double slip to design too!

The one advantage I can see is that I can use the CAD and incorporate it into a 3D virtual model in CAD before I commit to making the baseboards.

The c. 0.25mm height difference is annoying but I was thinking of printing the final fiddle yard templates onto some thin card, sticking those to the baseboards, varnishing it (to seal it) and laying the track onto that (the Finetrax being laid directly onto the baseboard).

Offline belstone

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 891
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Belstone blog
    • Awards
Re: Tighter track standards for N gauge?
« Reply #47 on: June 10, 2018, 11:26:40 am »
Chairplate experiment number two: a short straight length with PCB sleepers and chairplates every fifth sleeper, and plastic chairs glued to 20 thou styrene strip in between.  Ignoring my crude hand-cut plastic sleepers it's not too terrible.



This took me far too long to make, and no-one would actually make plain track like this. But I now think this method of construction can be applied to turnouts so I will have a go. Cutting chairplates off duff coupler etches is taking me longer than anything else, I suspect I will be back on the drawing software before the end of today and get some proper chairplates etched up. Here are the ones I am using at the moment.



Right, back to work and see if I can build up a B6 turnout this way.

Richard

Offline kirky

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 18171
  • Posts: 1459
  • Country: 00
  • Gender: Male
    • Facebook
    • Awards
Re: Tighter track standards for N gauge?
« Reply #48 on: June 11, 2018, 09:42:04 pm »
I have been giving a lot of thought to tiebars etc and decided to try something different on this one.  I don't claim any credit for this, almost certainly it is something that I have read about somewhere else.  I took two 14BA brass slotted cheesehead screws and filed half the heads down along the slot to form a step. These were soldered to the switch rails with the step on the inside, then carefully tidied up with a file to give enough clearance for a wheel flange on the inside, and allow the switch rail to lie flat against the stock rail on the outside.  The switch rails were then attached to the rest of the turnout. I tried breaking one of the screws off the switch rail and it took a fair bit of force: the step gives a greater contact area for the soldered joint and means that when the switch rail is closed against the stock rail it is the step which takes the load.





@belstone
Richard, I just came across this on the 2mmFS association pages.
I think this might be what you had in mind anyway, but just thought you might welcome the reminder.

http://www.2mm.org.uk/products/instruction_sheets/pdf1-100.pdf

cheers
Kirky
Northallerton is in the August 2018 edition of Raiway Modeller

and in real life at the Normanton and Pontefract exhibition. New College, Park Lane, Pontefract. 26/27th January 2019



Layout: Northallerton: http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=1671.msg16930#msg16930

www.northallertonngauge.co.uk

Cleveland Model Railway club website: www.clevelandmrc.club

Offline belstone

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 891
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Belstone blog
    • Awards
Re: Tighter track standards for N gauge?
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2018, 11:54:07 pm »
Thanks @kirky for that. The 2mm Assoc underboard tiebar is probably what gave me the idea, I'd seen it a while ago and thought it a very neat and clever solution.  My version with 14BA screws is heavier and clumsier than the Association one, which seems to be the case with just about everything I design.

Steady progress on turnout number two - mixed PCB/chairplate and plastic sleeper construction.  I am now up to the stage where the switch rails are filed to a nice taper and ready for attaching the 14BA screws. I have been picking away at this between other jobs, it is probably about three hours worth in total so far, and would be a bit less if I had etched chairplates ready to use.



I have two diameters of flux-cored solder - too thick and not thick enough. I have been playing around between the two which means there is more variation in the size of the solder "chairs" than I would ideally like. The check rails are not chaired but attached directly to the sleepers, so the tops are around 10 thou below running rail height.  I would love to say this is the result of @maridunian 's suggestion in my layout thread, so the check rails can be painted rust colour and not have to be redone every time the track is cleaned.  The truth is that I forgot to put in double width chairplates until it was too late.

I have some sleeper-sized styrene strip in the post and the plastic chairs already in place, so I should have something finished by the end of the week.  Note the assembly board - an offcut of thick plastic so I can drop the completed turnout in the sink and separate it from the template.

I gave the short test piece of track a quick waft of primer to see how it looked. Not too bad, you can see the three different types of sleeper (Finetrax, PCB with chairplates, plastic chairs glued to styrene strip sleepers) but I've seen worse. It's not totally obvious that this is N gauge anyway, at least to my eyes.



Richard

Offline kirky

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 18171
  • Posts: 1459
  • Country: 00
  • Gender: Male
    • Facebook
    • Awards
Re: Tighter track standards for N gauge?
« Reply #50 on: June 13, 2018, 07:26:19 am »
@belstone
Thanks for that Richard, brilliant stuff again.
I'm pretty sure my P4 friends simply leave their templot templates in place. In fact the forty foot monster taking shape in our clubrooms has the entire trackbed printed out from templot and then glued onto the baseboard trackbed. The sleeper are  just glued straight onto the templates and then ballasted over in the usual way. Do really need to separate the template from the turnout? Just a thought.

Im getting itchy fingers... I really want to get started on my own handbuilt points. Unfortunately far too many other things need to be finished first.
Cheers
Kirky
Northallerton is in the August 2018 edition of Raiway Modeller

and in real life at the Normanton and Pontefract exhibition. New College, Park Lane, Pontefract. 26/27th January 2019



Layout: Northallerton: http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=1671.msg16930#msg16930

www.northallertonngauge.co.uk

Cleveland Model Railway club website: www.clevelandmrc.club

Offline belstone

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 891
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Belstone blog
    • Awards
Re: Tighter track standards for N gauge?
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2018, 07:53:28 am »
@belstone
Thanks for that Richard, brilliant stuff again.
I'm pretty sure my P4 friends simply leave their templot templates in place. In fact the forty foot monster taking shape in our clubrooms has the entire trackbed printed out from templot and then glued onto the baseboard trackbed. The sleeper are  just glued straight onto the templates and then ballasted over in the usual way. Do really need to separate the template from the turnout? Just a thought.

Im getting itchy fingers... I really want to get started on my own handbuilt points. Unfortunately far too many other things need to be finished first.
Cheers
Kirky


If I was building a layout from scratch the turnouts might be built directly onto the board, but even then I think it would probably be easier to build them "off-board" and correct any mistakes before laying them.  It's not impossible to get things so badly wrong you have to start again, not for me anyway.

Richard

Offline belstone

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 891
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Belstone blog
    • Awards
Re: Tighter track standards for N gauge?
« Reply #52 on: June 14, 2018, 08:11:22 am »
Last night I finished off the soldering by attaching the operating pins (14BA screws) to the switch rails, cutting them to length and soldering them in place using cut down 2mm Association slide chairplates which are a bit beefier than the home-made ones I was using.  I then set about filling in the gaps with plastic strip sleepers glued to the chairs which I had fitted to the rails before soldering them down.  This turned out to be easy and satisfying: I cut a bevelled end on a piece of strip (like a wood chisel), slid it under the chairs, positioned it, cut both ends square and then gave each chair a touch of Mekpak. It was then left overnight to harden.



Moment of truth: I dropped the whole lot into a bowl of warm water and left it for a few minutes.  The turnout came away from the assembly board without leaving any bits behind.  Hurrah! Here it is compared to the non-chaired one, which has lost a sleeper due to my rubbish soldering techniques.



It seems pretty robust for something so spindly.  The only problem I had was that one of the operating pins was not entirely vertical.  I took a deep breath and resoldered it with a dab of flux to make the solder flow.  It took several attempts to get it right.  I think I will look at making a jig so I can attach the pins after the turnout is complete, so they can be held at the correct angle before being soldered.

Here are a couple of cruel close-ups.  It needs a bit of tidying with a fine file to remove surplus solder as well as the hidden tiebar fitting, but should look OK when painted.  Now to build another turnout and see if it comes out as well as this one.





The total height to rail level turns out to be less than that of Finetrax flexi track.  The difference is about the thickness of a sheet of 80gsm copier paper so that problem is easily enough sorted.

Richard

 

Please Support Us!
October Goal: £55.00
Due Date: Oct 31
Total Receipts: £40.00
Below Goal: £15.00
Site Currency: GBP
73% 
October Donations


Advertise Here
anything