I have a 2' x 3' test loop at present.
I'm considering upgrading it into a more interesting affair.
I'd very much like peoples opinions on the proposal below. The track height where it crosses is 60mm above the lower one. I know the gradients are steeper than some would like, I think about 3%-3.5%, but for a test loop that's acceptable for me.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/90/5604-050420142309.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=90319)
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/90/5604-050420142412.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=90320)
Looks fine to me, I would say you could get away with not having as much as 60mm between track heights. I'm running very successfully with 33mm clearance between top of the lower track and the overhead, with 43mm between track to track. Admittedly I have a girder bridge, not a tunnel.
In my opinion you've gone from a test track to an assault course.
I'd be wary of running in any loco on a gradient.
And your gradients will be on curves which makes them even tougher for a loco going up hauling a train.
As @TrevL (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5583) says you don't need 60mm clearance, 43mm should be more than adequate.
Regards,
John P
Why don't you make it more interesting and make one go minus level and one go plus level and meet the bridge half way.
Ron
As has been said, 60mm is over generous although none of my stock has pantographs.
My code 55 track sits on 1½mm thick underlay and nominal 2" timber (now 44mm) was fine from baseboard surface to base of the upper level baseboard.
Thanks all.
I set the 'height' of the rail at 60mm on AnyRail, so I'm assuming that it'd be rail top to rail top, which I've assumed will NOT take into account the sleepers, base, etc..
I did think about the lowering one and raising the other, which is what I have planned for my main layout in the future (not sure if I'll live long enough to ever get there mind), but my brain was struggling to comprehend the workings of that on this small plan, clear as a day in principle on my main plan, clear as mud on this!
In a previous thread I'd documented that I can get a BachFar Jubilee and a rake of eight Staniers up and round a 10" curve on a 3.5% incline with a small amount of slip, which is way more than I'd ever do.
@jpendle (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3871) I hadn't considered the running in aspect. Has anyone else got any thoughts on that ?
:thankyousign:
It's my belief all locos should be run in without a load but I think nowhere does it state "Thou shalt not use gradients, curved or otherwise"
I do agree with John, though, and would avoid doing that. Either just use a flat oval of track or a rolling road.
I had my flyover at 45mm, but had to jack it up a bit after it removed the air horns from a US EMD DD40 AX.
I'd keep the upper level as low as running your biggest loco under it will allow, but make sure you can recover/restart any failures in the tunnel. My layout has separate upper and lower loops. The latter is pretty much flat so continuous steady running is possible on that. The outer is all up-and-down, but only ~2" in ~3' (1/18) on the steeper slope and 2" in ~6' (1/36) the other way.
Mike
I like to use a Unitrack K3 set for running in, it's a figure 8 set so loco bogies get to turn both ways, and there's a bit of gradient to apply a light load and bed things in. I think the bridge piers give a clearance of 50mm
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1260/4747/products/Kato20-833B_grande.jpg?v=1571729621)
A minor update to this, I've finalised a track plan.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/91/5604-230420235130.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=91617)
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/91/5604-230420235303.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=91618)
I've managed to squeeze in a headshunt. Following feedback on the crossover clearance I've got it down to 45mm, and the the internal loop gradient is going to be approx 2.8% whilst the outer loop gradient comes in at about 2.25%
The baseboard is well under construction as we 'speak'.
Looks better and the grades should be doable by standard rolling stuff
Who says you can't have inclines on a curve >:D
Exhibit 1. my old B&O layout, admittedly I don't recall the height but it was way more then I needed for my track passing underneath and my EMD E8/9 would haul a rake of heavyweight coaches up there no problem.
(https://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w308/lawrence1961/0108-2.jpg) (https://s179.photobucket.com/user/lawrence1961/media/0108-2.jpg.html)
In fact the gradient was even steeper at the other end and where they crossed I had enough room for a HiCube box car plus over a cm clearance, bad planing!
Following a rootle through my timber store, progress has progressed!
Please excuse the patchwork nature of the construction, I've used what I've got!
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/91/5604-270420131709.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=91812)
I'm planning on sticking the track down with Copydex, and I think I need to prime the wood first t assist with adhesion, am I correct?
What do people suggest for priming?
Do I use thinned PVA glue or paint the entire board with primer?
Suggestions please.
I've never bothered with priming the ply. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to prime for Copydex to stick - in fact probably stick better to the raw wood.
I use cork strip for a track bed, it sticks fins to the ply with PVA.
Great looking board, well done!
Definitely no need to prime ply for Copydex.
Quote from: njee20 on April 27, 2020, 01:42:34 PM
Great looking board, well done!
Definitely no need to prime ply for Copydex.
It's a bit of a hotch-potch of bits, some of which has been kicking around for years in my workshop, hence I was thinking it would be prudent to prime.
I've only just caught up with this thread - it's an interesting idea for a small space layout. You don't say what plans you have regarding the type of stock you intend to run, but I do query how useful the headshunt will be - it's less than 30cm long and would only hold a small tank loco/shunter and a couple of wagons. Are you intending to have a station, if so, where? I know you have done the woodwork now but I think I'd have almost been inclined to make the right-hand siding into a passing loop and put a small station on the curve.
Quote from: ntpntpntp on April 27, 2020, 01:36:58 PM
I've never bothered with priming the ply. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to prime for Copydex to stick - in fact probably stick better to the raw wood.
I use cork strip for a track bed, it sticks fins to the ply with PVA.
Yup, I'd go with that too.
I'll be interested to see how this progresses.
Cheers,
Chris
Quote from: ntpntpntp on April 27, 2020, 01:36:58 PM
I've never bothered with priming the ply. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to prime for Copydex to stick - in fact probably stick better to the raw wood.
I use cork strip for a track bed, it sticks fins to the ply with PVA.
Sorry, missed your reply initially. I'm not going with the cork underlay. I'm going with track straight on the ply. Hopefully I've got the 'bed' smooth enough.
Quote from: Papyrus on April 27, 2020, 01:51:22 PM
I've only just caught up with this thread - it's an interesting idea for a small space layout. You don't say what plans you have regarding the type of stock you intend to run, but I do query how useful the headshunt will be - it's less than 30cm long and would only hold a small tank loco/shunter and a couple of wagons. Are you intending to have a station, if so, where? I know you have done the woodwork now but I think I'd have almost been inclined to make the right-hand siding into a passing loop and put a small station on the curve.
Quote from: ntpntpntp on April 27, 2020, 01:36:58 PM
I've never bothered with priming the ply. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to prime for Copydex to stick - in fact probably stick better to the raw wood.
I use cork strip for a track bed, it sticks fins to the ply with PVA.
Yup, I'd go with that too.
I'll be interested to see how this progresses.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris, no plans for a station. The two sidings are to be just that, but with either a small industry or goods yard next to them. As this is only intended to be a progression from a test loop, and somewhere to practice electrickery and scenickery, the headshunt is only aimed at small scale shunting.
Good bit of woodworkery practice too :D
Quote from: ntpntpntp on April 27, 2020, 05:30:48 PM
Good bit of woodworkery practice too :D
Cripes! If my regular clients saw this baseboard I'd never be asked back into their homes!
one easy way to find out if your trains will climb a gradient is to build a jig. with N gauge use wickes plastic trunking, and stick your track to it with double-sided tape or 'sticky fixers' you can then either just use the 'lid' on which you fixed the track, or the main trunking beneath, in which you can incorporate wiring. using spacers and a ruler on a piece of MDF on your bench or kitchen table, you can assess whether or not the slope will work.
If you are using curves then you can cut easily short sections of trunking cap (and main trunking) to stick under the track with 'sticky fixers' and then experiment. The advantage of using 'trunking' thus is that you can incorporate back-to-back pairs of diodes which if soldered across a break in the track, will effect a slowing of the train..try it! I have.. works a treat!
Thanks for the reply.
I've already tested gradients a few years ago with a test loop propped up at one end. What I have in this scenario is well within the capabilities of what I require.
Just run through what you're talking about with diodes. Why would you do it, and how does it work?
Following my succesful assault on the title of 'Child of the Year' after presenting my father with his shunting plank on Fathers Day, my two sisters didn't stand a chance, I am now putting a bit of time into this folded loop project. (Although I am now inundated with shopping list for materials, kits, scatter etc., etc. and a deluge of progress photos.)
The bulk of it is a loop, but the tricky wiring is the two turnouts. Mainly because one is a double slip.
The diagram below has the insulated fishplates in BLUE.
The main feeds are the RED and BLACK triangles.
I understand that the FROG of the LH turnout (GREEN wire) will be connected to the Cobalt to be correctly switched.
BUT how the heck do I wire the Double Slip for DCC? I'm struggling with the Peco explanation. The three pre-connected wires are in GREEN.
If someone could dumb this down even further for me that would be great.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-290620233414.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96304)
Quote from: emjaybee on June 29, 2020, 11:35:31 PM
BUT how the heck do I wire the Double Slip for DCC? I'm struggling with the Peco explanation. The three pre-connected wires are in GREEN.
If someone could dumb this down even further for me that would be great.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-290620233414.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96304)
Hi,
So wiring it for DCC is no different from wiring it for DC.
First there should be FOUR wires already connected to the slip, one to each frog and one to each stock rail, right in the middle of the slip. And just for clarity by stock rail I mean the two longest rails that form the outside of the slip.
Second, you need to COMPLETELY ISOLATE the slip from the rest of the track work, so you will need 8 IRJ's on the slip.
Third connect the DCC track bus to the two stock rails.
Finally connect the left most frog wire to the right most Cobalt's switch, and the right most frog wire to the left most Cobalt's switch.
BTW some Cobalts have a built in Frog terminal which switches the bus power for the Cobalt to the frog. If you are planning on having a separate accessory bus then this can cause problems because if a short occurs with a loco on the point you have effectively connected your track bus and accessory busses together through the Cobalt.
You can avoid this by using the separate independent switch on the Cobalt.
Regards,
John P
QuoteSo wiring it for DCC is no different from wiring it for DC.
Absolutely :thumbsup:
So, if I understand correctly.
Cobalt motors are going to be IP Digital. (Orange)
Wiring should be like so...
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-300620001031.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96305)
Yes, that's right.
John P
One tiny thing: given that the double slip has IRJs on all rails, there's no need for another IRJ on the point V rail which leads to the slip. As it stands in the diagram you've got a totally isolated length of rail there :) Just need the one IRJ for the straight route out of the point.
Or add another "red" dropper to that rail.
@jpendle (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3871) Thanks JP.
Question: If you put a feed on the stock rails of the slip, why have IRJ's on the ends of the stock rails?
What am I not seeing?
@ntpntpntp (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5885) yes, I understand. I'd have a dead section. The short section of track is a recent addition, maybe.
Quote from: TrevL on June 30, 2020, 09:49:07 AM
Or add another "red" dropper to that rail.
Quite correct, thanks.
To be honest I think the reason for fully isolating the slip with IRJs is a DC thing, because typically you'd be choosing which controller to power the trackwork through the slip depending on the route taken. Effectively the slip becomes its own little cab control section. That's how I've wired my slips on my DC layout.
With DCC it shouldn't be necessary to isolate the outside stock rails, only the frog Vs like any other electrofrog point. Doesn't do any harm to wire the same as for DC though, even if the stock rails are then simply linked to the DCC track bus.
Quote from: ntpntpntp on June 30, 2020, 09:55:43 AM
To be honest I think the reason for fully isolating the slip with IRJs is a DC thing, because typically you'd be choosing which controller to power the trackwork through the slip depending on the route taken. Effectively the slip becomes its own little cab control section. That's how I've wired my slips on my DC layout.
With DCC it shouldn't be necessary to isolate the outside stock rails, only the frog Vs like any other electrofrog point. Doesn't do any harm to wire the same as for DC though, even if the stock rails are then simply linked to the DCC track bus.
Thanks for that.
It has made me think though.
How difficult would it be to wire the layout for DCC and DC?
Wire properly for DC and it will work for both. That's my philosophy. Use mechanical frog switches rather than frog juicers (mostly they don't work with DC). Keep point motor accessory decoders etc. on a separate DCC bus so that they can continue to be operated on DCC even when the trackwork is DC (even if that means simply join the accessory bus to the track bus when running DCC).
My current loco depot project is most definitely wired for DC - control panel smothered with section switches :D but I know I can simply unplug the DC controller, plug in DCC and it will work (leave all section switches on).
Quote from: emjaybee on June 30, 2020, 09:49:42 AM
@jpendle (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3871) Thanks JP.
Question: If you put a feed on the stock rails of the slip, why have IRJ's on the ends of the stock rails?
What am I not seeing?
Sorry, you don't need to do that for DCC, all my posts are done from memory, cos by the time I've been out to the shed to see what I did, someone else will have beaten me to it ;)
John P
Quote from: jpendle on June 30, 2020, 01:54:20 PM
Quote from: emjaybee on June 30, 2020, 09:49:42 AM
@jpendle (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3871) Thanks JP.
Question: If you put a feed on the stock rails of the slip, why have IRJ's on the ends of the stock rails?
What am I not seeing?
Sorry, you don't need to do that for DCC, all my posts are done from memory, cos by the time I've been out to the shed to see what I did, someone else will have beaten me to it ;)
John P
Thanks JP, some of the bods on here are walking encyclopedia's of modelling.
Do they 'do' sheds in the US? I've spent a fair amount of time travelling around, including visits to Home Depot, Lowes, etc., and I don't recall sheds.
Quote from: emjaybee on June 30, 2020, 10:43:37 PM
Do they 'do' sheds in the US? I've spent a fair amount of time travelling around, including visits to Home Depot, Lowes, etc., and I don't recall sheds.
They do! They call them 'storage barns', and apart from the size they are garden sheds by another name.
But in my case it's actually a detached 2 car garage with extra tall doors so you can park your boat and RV under cover :D
The previous owner built it and used it as a woodworking shop, or workshop as we would say.
See, I am bilingual, despite what all my European and Asian colleagues might say ;D .
Course, if I had a brain I would have realised, BEFORE using my old baseboards, that my layout would end up on a gradient, cos it's a garage and the floor slopes down towards the double doors. :doh:
Oh well.
Regards,
John P
Quote from: jpendle on June 30, 2020, 11:01:36 PM
Quote from: emjaybee on June 30, 2020, 10:43:37 PM
Do they 'do' sheds in the US? I've spent a fair amount of time travelling around, including visits to Home Depot, Lowes, etc., and I don't recall sheds.
But in my case it's actually a detached 2 car garage with extra tall doors so you can park your boat and RV under cover :D
Course, if I had a brain I would have realised, BEFORE using my old baseboards, that my layout would end up on a gradient, cos it's a garage and the floor slopes down towards the double doors. :doh:
Nice workspace! Ah yes, barns, seen mention of them.
Yeah, we're pretty bilingual too. We're also pretty fluent with the driving skills. I actually prefer driving in the US to the UK. The one problem I always have is we get back to Heathrow, get back in our 'manual' car, hike up the M40 to Jct10, and almost without fail I stall the car at the exit roundabout as I've spent two weeks driving an auto!
Quote from: emjaybee on June 30, 2020, 11:16:00 PM
Yeah, we're pretty bilingual too. We're also pretty fluent with the driving skills. I actually prefer driving in the US to the UK. The one problem I always have is we get back to Heathrow, get back in our 'manual' car, hike up the M40 to Jct10, and almost without fail I stall the car at the exit roundabout as I've spent two weeks driving an auto!
On one trip back to the UK (not last year's one when we met you at TINGS but I think the year before) I parked our stick-shift in Abingdon by a bus stop so we could have a quick swing around town before it got dark and sneak a look at Blenheim Palace.
As we got out of the car and locked it, naturally I'd forgotten to put the handbrake on as I'm used to an automatic locking the transmission, so the car started slowly to trundle down towards the High Street. A lady waiting in line for the bus alerted me "Yer car's moving" so I hopped back in and applied said handbrake.
I thanked her as she did the "bleddy tourist" eye-roll. Jill capped it off though, she's good at this: "We're American, we don't know how to drive on the wrong side of the road. We're amazed we made it this far from Heathrow without crashing into something small".
The chorus of tutting and muttering from the bus queue was worth the price of admission. :)
So, trundling back on topic, we progress.
I've tweaked the track plan a little and incorporated a hiding, yes, a hiding, not a siding, as this will be under the scenery. It will enable me to 'park' a loco, and or a wagon or two out of sight.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-030720222715.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96480)
I'm also going to take the track right to the edge of the board to allow the option of loading via a cassette.
Just to fill in the blanks, this will hopefully be a multi-era, multi-country, multi-location layout. I'm hoping (ha-ha), to have interchangeable tunnel portals, buildings, goods yard/industry to allow be to play run a variety of stock.
I'm at this point at the moment.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-030720223915.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96481)
Right, the first of the problems.
I'm using Cobalt IP Digital, and unfortunately due to the trackplan, both the single turnouts are quite close the edge of the board, which means I can't get the Cobalt where I need it because of their size/shape.
Has anyone off-set a Cobalt and how did you link to the turnout? The DCC Concepts site has a way, but it seems ridiculously complex. Can I not just get a fresh length of spring steel and bend an appropriate link rod?
Something like this?
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-030720225643.png) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96482)
Anyone got a spec for the spring steel and a supplier?
Ta!
Quote from: emjaybee on July 03, 2020, 10:59:49 PM
Something like this?
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-030720225643.png) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96482)
I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I suspect that, if you bend the wire as shown, the bit that goes into the point tie-bar would act as a second pivot point, and the right angle bend would just end up trying to swing back and forth, especially if you are using Peco points and don't remove the springs.
Assuming that you are offsetting the point to the side of the motor, then you need to bend the wire at 90 degrees so that it runs sideways from the cobalt to the point tie bar, but I still think you might need to thread the wire through an eyelet screwed into the baseboard from underneath to guide the wire.
For my Tortoise motors I use 0.64mm Music Wire, when I need to replace the wire that came with the motor.
Regards,
John P
You can buy 0.64 mm piano wire from Squires or mega points controllers if that is the right size for you. I am using it for my servos to control points.
Quote from: jpendle on July 03, 2020, 11:26:42 PM
Quote from: emjaybee on July 03, 2020, 10:59:49 PM
Something like this?
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-030720225643.png) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96482)
I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I suspect that, if you bend the wire as shown, the bit that goes into the point tie-bar would act as a second pivot point, and the right angle bend would just end up trying to swing back and forth, especially if you are using Peco points and don't remove the springs.
Assuming that you are offsetting the point to the side of the motor, then you need to bend the wire at 90 degrees so that it runs sideways from the cobalt to the point tie bar, but I still think you might need to thread the wire through an eyelet screwed into the baseboard from underneath to guide the wire.
For my Tortoise motors I use 0.64mm Music Wire, when I need to replace the wire that came with the motor.
Regards,
John P
Hi JP, I'm afraid I couldn't master Paint3D, but in my head, the line diagram is:
the bottom short bit goes into the Cobalt motor, it pivots part way up the long upright, and the next 90deg bend is at 90deg to the bottom 'bar' i.e., this shape wouldn't be able to lay flat , there would always be a bit of it sticking up. It'd be a 3D shape not a 'flat' shape.
I think you are on the same wavelength with your description, the 'eyelet' sounds like a good plan if necessary.
The springs will be removed from the Peco points. I've also found the Cobalt spec on the wire, it's 0.8mm spring steel.
Thanks.
Quote from: Andy-S on July 03, 2020, 11:41:13 PM
You can buy 0.64 mm piano wire from Squires or mega points controllers if that is the right size for you. I am using it for my servos to control points.
Thanks for the info.
Hi,
I just tried to do this with one of my Tortoise motors and it just doesn't work, at least not for N Gauge.
Assuming that the Cobalt works on the same principle as the Tortoise then the first thing to get you head around is that for a regular installation the top of the actuating wire describes an arc as it moves from side to side. This is fine when you use the central hole of the fulcrum because you set the point for one route or the other, and then trim the wire so that the absolute minimum is poking through the tiebar, this ensures that any ladders, or pipes or other dangly bits on your rolling stock don't foul the wire. In my experience this means that the wire has to be no higher than the little 'pip' on a Peco point.
As the point motor moves the top of the wire will rise higher as it describes it arc as the motor is moving and then when the point is at the end of the movement the wire will have lowered again and all will be well.
So, what happens when you put a right angle bend towards the end of the wire to get to an offset point. The arc that the end of te wire becomes much greater AND you get a situation where the wire protrudes through the tie bar a lot more in one position than in the other.
Using your diagram as an exaggerated example.
The top right hand side is the bit poking through the tie bar and the tie bar is all the way over to the right hand side, the pivot point, or centre of the arc is the bottom left of the drawing. Imagine the Cobalt turning the wire about the pivot point, the bit that pokes through the tie bar will rise and rise as the point moves and will end up higher even when the point has finished moving.
What I saw yesterday when I tried this was that the wire ended up protruding by almost 0.5 cm, or around 3 to 4 times the height of the pip on the tiebar and all the rolling stock I tried fouled it.
So to fix this I'm going to try to extend the tie bar of the point, and if that doesn't work I'm going to have to attack the baseboard framework to make room for a centrally placed motor.
As a last resort I would have to lift all the track at the North end of Wigan NW station and push it all another 3 or 4 inches away from the baseboard join.
Regards,
John P
Hi JP, sorry for your turnout troubles.
This scenario had occurred to me. I've got a reasonably good eye for levers, fulcrums and pivots. I do, however have an idea, which may, or may not help you and I.
If the motor were mounted a little FARTHER away, and the top bar of the linkage was longer, you could then pass it through a couple of small eyelets which would keep it parallel with the under side of the board. This would mean that the final upright part of the linkage would remain in one plane (?). The extra length on the top bar would allow a little more flex to prevent, hopefully, the mechanism binding.
What do you think?
I know you won't like this - but I think you're chasing your losses, JP.
It's painful, but I've been down those roads before and the eventual conclusion is not to work around the problem, but fix it at the source. I've spent far too many hours trying to McGuiver something that is inherently flawed.
Good luck if you can fix it, but my gut feeling is that you need to go back to basics and fix the issue before it becomes a problem.
Hi,
I decided to cut a chunk out of the baseboard frame to get the motor to sit in the correct position underneath the point. It took about an hour of drilling and chiseling but the point now works as it should.
Today I just need to add some reinforcement to the baseboard frame and I will be done.
Regards,
John P
@jpendle (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3871) don't cut any more baseboard!
I've had an efipany ipoofy epipyfy bright idea!
This is the usual arrangement of the actuating rod.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-140720222421.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96952)
All my thinking has been about bending the rod above the fulcrum, that's a mistake unless you need a really big offset.
If you only need a 10mm or so offset, than I think this is the answer, using one of the other holes in the fulcrum bar.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/96/5604-140720222603.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=96953)
This, I think, will solve the one problematic turnout I have to deal with.