Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 10 Mar 2008 17:21 from: Brian Tulley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi all, I spent yesterday trying my hand at forming a common crossing (Code 75 B/H rail) using the EMGS/Portsdown Models Common Crossing Filing & Assembly Jig. However, whilst I have no concerns regarding filing the mating faces of the Splice Rail and Point Rail, I am a little confused regarding the filing of the outer faces of the tip of the common crossing. In the instructions it says "File the Rail flush with the jig...."; however there is no mention of how far the rail should be protruding from the jig before filing commences. This filing removes both head and foot of the rail from both the Splice and Point Rails at the tip - is this correct? I am wondering if I should perhaps leave any filing operations on the tip of the crossing until after soldering? How should I file the tip i.e. what appearance? Any links to photos (ideally of model crossing tips prior to addition of wing rails) would be a great help; all the reference books I have show the crossing with wing rails already in place, and not in sufficient close up to be of help. Many thanks. Best Regards, Brian. p.s. Martin - can you tell me what the angles of the Crossings are for 1:5, 1:6, 1:7 and 1:8 please? This will help me in deciding how far the two rails should protrude from the Jig for the soldering process. Many thanks. |
||
|
posted: 10 Mar 2008 17:59 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Brian, Here is a diagram showing what you are trying to do: vee_tips.png  I have greatly exaggerated the crossing angle for clarity. The rails are shown in cross-section along the rail -- yellow shows the rail head and foot, orange shows the web of the rail. A is a prepared piece of rail with the end bent to the crossing angle, or slightly less. Allow a little extra on the overall length. Two cuts are made as shown, producing the result at B with solid metal at the tip at x. It is possible to leave making the second cuts until after the vee is assembled, producing a neater result, but it is difficult to hold the assembled vee for that if you intend to file them in a jig. The splice rail C is as B, and the point rail D is the same again but of the opposite hand. It is notched down to the web to make a soldered joint at s. In view of the solder fill and jig assembly, a hand filed notch is good enough. The final tasks are to blunt off the nose as shown, to a scale width of 3/4" (bullhead) or 5/8" (flat-bottom), and to re-instate the rail-head corner radius on the filed areas. A few strokes with a fine file and a final polish with abrasive paper will do that. It's also a good idea to take a few thou off the top of the vee nose so that it dips down slightly below the wing rails. This allows for the coning angle on the wheels as they run off the wing rail onto the nose, producing smoother running. Here are some further diagrams, showing how most of the work can be done after assembly of the vee. This requires only 3 cuts instead of 4 in total previously, and cleans up any slight mismatch at the tip and any stray solder. It's difficult to hold an assembled vee this way for filing, but fairly easily arranged on a disc sander. As before the rail is shown in horizontal cross-section, yellow is the rail head and orange is the web of the rail: vee_assy.png  A is the point rail, simply bent at the end at the crossing angle. B is the splice rail, as A but cut back as shown. C, D, E are then assembled in a suitable jig. Assembled point rail D is as A but of the opposite hand, notched with a file to receive C. Assembled splice rail C is as B, soldered into the notch in D. Use high-temperature solder because the rail gets hot while sanding. If necessary stop and dip it in a jar of cold water. Using high-temp solder also reduces the risk of it coming apart later if you are using soldered track construction. E is a scrap of rail or metal strip temporarily soldered across the vee rail ends to improve stability while sanding. It can be left in place until you are actually building the track, and then the surplus vee rail ends are trimmed back as required. V is the result after making two cuts on the sander as shown. The bulk of the metal can be quickly removed with a coarse file or metal shears before finishing on the sander. The end result is an accurately aligned vee comprised of solid rail at the nose. All that then remains is to fettle the tip and blunt back the nose, as noted previously. I have extracted the above notes from this topic: topic 273 which covers the same subject from the point of view of machining vees on a mill, rather than hand filing. Hope this helps.  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 10 Mar 2008 20:03 from: Alan Turner
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Tulley wrote: However, whilst I have no concerns regarding filing the mating faces of the Splice Rail and Point Rail, If you want to know how not to do it I suggest you go here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2107 All the things you are not supposed to do are illustrated here. Alan |
||
| Last edited on 10 Mar 2008 20:16 by Alan Turner |
|||
|
posted: 10 Mar 2008 21:22 from: Brian Tulley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, Many thanks for the reply, and for the links to previous discussion on the subject. In that discussion there is mention of: But I can happily advise on the angles, (RAM), and these are:Would these be the internal angles of the crossing "V" by any chance? (I don't understand the term RAM, by the way). Many thanks. Best Regards, Brian. |
||
|
posted: 10 Mar 2008 21:36 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Tulley wrote: I don't understand the term RAM, by the wayHi Brian, RAM = Right Angle Measure = Templot default and some Continental European prototypes: ram_angle_diagram.png  RAM unit angles are traditionally used by modellers because they correspond with normal engineering practice and are easily set out with dividers -- all measurements are either along the rail or at right-angles to it. Templot uses RAM angles by default for this reason. CLM = Centre Line Measure = most US and UK prototypes: clm_angle_diagram.png  Measurements are made along an imaginary centre-line between the vee rails, and at right angles to that centre-line. Neither measurement is along the rail. It's easy to do on the ground with gauging tools which fit across the rails, but more difficult on a drawing board. CLM unit angles are used because the rules-of-thumb formulae which are used by the p.w. gang when setting out pointwork on the ground are simplified, and produce closer approximations to the true mathematical result. Nowadays with everything done on computers there is no real need for unit angles, we could work directly in degrees or radians. But tradition dies hard and the unit numbers are brain-friendly and easy to remember. To convert the unit angles to degrees, for unit angle N: CLM degrees = 2 x ARCTAN ( 1 / ( 2 x N ) ) RAM degrees = ARCTAN ( 1 / N ) So for 1:5 crossings (#5 frogs): CLM = 2 x ARCTAN(1/10) = 11deg 25min 16.27sec RAM = ARCTAN(1/5) = 11deg 18min 35.76sec Note that for increasing N (flatter angles) the difference between CLM and RAM diminishes.For modelling purposes the difference in angle is insignificant, but it makes a measurable difference to the lead length of a turnout. Try swapping from RAM to CLM in Templot to see the difference. So for 1:10 crossings (#10 frogs): CLM = 2 x ARCTAN(1/20) = 5deg 43min 29.32sec RAM = ARCTAN(1/10) = 5deg 42min 38.14sec I shall leave you to dab your own calculator for the rest! Or you can use this trick in Templot: peg_ram_degrees.png  Set a straight turnout, shift it onto the datum so that the rails are horizontal on the screen. Press CTRL-4 twice, and on the info panel read the angle in degrees for the peg. To find a different angle, press CTRL-0 (zero), change the crossing angle as required and repeat the process. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 10 Mar 2008 23:37 from: Geoff Cook
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Tulley wrote: Hi all, Brain using the EMGS jig you only have to have sufficent rail protruding to file away the side profile to the centre of the rail 1st filing fit the rail in the jig with the end covering about 60% of the exposed slot, file down to the face of the jig and check that you have filed it to the centre of the rail, if not and it requires it bit more filing off then move the rail so that it protrudes slightly and fille flat with the face when you are happy with that, bend the filed part of the rail back so that the filed face is now straight with the rest of the rail 2nd filing fit the rail back in the jig with the previously filed face facing in towards the jig this time slide the rail so that nearly all the exposed part of the slot is covered by the rail, file the exposed part of the rail flat with the surface of the jig such that as before you file to the centre of the rail but aim to create a slightly blunt end approx 0.2mm check for blunt end if to big slide the rail up the slot and file flush to create smaller blunt end having then done a few you wil be able to judge were to put the rail Geoff Cook |
||
|
posted: 11 Mar 2008 15:25 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Brian I have attached a stitched together a plan view photo (not perfect but will give you an idea) of a 1 in 71/2 GW common crossing to see the original photos see the share and show page in this forum. Cheers Phil |
||
| Attachment: attach_246_359_1_in_7.png 3209 | |||
|
posted: 11 Mar 2008 16:50 from: Brian Tulley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Geoff, Alan, Martin, Many thanks for the replies. Geoff - thanks for the words regarding the EMGS Jig; I'll try your procedure tonight and see how I get on. Best Regards, Brian. |
||
|
posted: 12 Mar 2008 00:48 from: polybear click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Geoff Cook wrote: Hi Geoff, Using this method do you file both Splice and Point Rails? I've tried this but the resulting geometry results in a badly fitting joint. However, if only the Splice Rail is filed then the joint is fine against a standard piece of rail in the Point Rail slot on the jig. This of course means that both head and foot on the Point Rail are still intact on both sides. The inner side will of course be taken care of by the soldering process, but what about the outer? Is it simply a case of blunting the tip as per Martin's instructions? Many thanks. Best Regards, Brian Tulley. |
||
|
posted: 12 Mar 2008 16:37 from: Geoff Cook
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
polybear wrote: Geoff Cook wrote:Hi Geoff, Brian you need to file the joint rail and the splice rail you need to file them so that they produce a pair, if when you file the first piece and you have the head of the rail slightly protruding from the surface of the jig, then the matching peice will have to have the foot of the rail protruding from the surface of the jig, the filing of both is the same example for 1:5 fit short length of rail in the 1:5 slot with the head of rail at top of slot, file and shape as described previously fit another short length of rail in 1:5 slot with the head of the rail at the bottom of the slot, file and shape as described previously having now got two peices of rail with there ends shaped fit one of these in the centre slot with head uppermost so that the filed end protrudes from the end of the jig now fit the second piece in the 1:5 slot with the head uppermost so that the prepared end protrudes from the jig and starts to forms a vee with the first piece you should now see that you can move the rail lenghtways in the slots so that either piece could become the nose of the vee it is at this point you can then decide which is the joint rail and which is the splice rail, if you are making a vee for a R/H turnout make the rail that is in the central slot the nose of the vee if it is a left hand you need to create use the rail in the 1:5 slot the nose of the vee when you are fitting together make sure that you don't pull them out to far, in so doing you will create a slight bend in each rail as they push against each other causing a gappy joint ensure that both rail heads are sitting together correctly and the vee is correctly formed and solder if you need to hold the rails in place at the nose, use aluminium hairdressing clip, and clamp vertically, do not try to squash the vee into place Geoff Cook |
||
|
posted: 12 Mar 2008 17:22 from: Brian Tulley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Geoff, Thanks for the reply. I'm pretty sure I did this last night, but the resulting "2nd Filings" on each piece of rail didn't seem to want to fit together neatly at the joint. I had several goes, with the position of the rail at different places in the exposed slot when filing to try to improve matters. What was apparent was that the "2nd Filing" of the first piece of rail created a surface that was nicely in-line with the longitudinal groove in the jig; therefore any similar angular filing of the second piece of rail would create a badly fitting joint. What I have managed is to file the first piece of rail as per your instructions; on the second piece of rail I removed both the head and foot of the rail on the inner mating face by simply filing it whilst the rail was laid on a flat surface. This created a notch with a flat surface to which the first piece of rail was soldered to in the jig. The result seems reasonable, although on one outer side of the Vee the head and foot of the rail remain intact at the tip, which I'm not sure is prototypically correct. I'm still intrigued as to what I'm doing wrong when using your method though; failing all else I'll be at Missenden Abbey this weekend (in Normon Solomon's trackmaking class) so maybe I'll get some pointers there also. Best Regards, Brian Tulley |
||
|
posted: 12 Mar 2008 17:23 from: Alan Turner
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
polybear wrote:
You file both rails. You end-up with a matching (but handed) pair. You have to correctly identify the rail head to ensure this. The rails will align together without any gaps to fill. Alan |
||
|
posted: 12 Mar 2008 21:10 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
The result seems reasonable, although on one outer side of the Vee the head and foot of the rail remain intact at the tip, which I'm not sure is prototypically correct. Hi Brian The foot of the point rail retains its foot as well as part of the head of the rail which of course reduces towards the blunt nose. On the prototype bullhead rail the foot of the rail protrudes past the blunt nose and is machined flat and drilled to take the nose bolt or screw see the photo. the foot of the rail also helps to hold the spacing blocks between the nose and wing rails. There is then a horizontal stud with a nut at each end through the whole assembly. Cheers Phil |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2008 12:25 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I wrote: Here are some further diagrams, showing how most of the work can be done after assembly of the vee. This requires only 3 cuts instead of 4 in total previously, and cleans up any slight mismatch at the tip and any stray solder. It's difficult to hold an assembled vee this way for filing, but fairly easily arranged on a disc sander. As before the rail is shown in horizontal cross-section, yellow is the rail head and orange is the web of the rail: Google found this very useful looking disc sander for track building: ccs130bd_xl.jpg  See: http://www.axminster.co.uk/product-Perform-CCS130BD2-Belt-and-Disc-Sander-462327.htm It costs £42 and here's the bumf from the site: "A small bench top sander intended for the serious model maker or toy maker. With a 25mm(1") belt and a tilting table, the machine is well suited to profiling, finishing or denibbing. The 125mm(5") diameter disc is provided with its own table and mitre fence and is very suitable for end grain work. All in all, this is a very effective small sanding machine with a host of applications in the hobby workshop. 2 x 45mm diameter dust extraction outlets are provided for both belt and disc." With some hardwood blocks and fences, screws and penny washers to hold the rail, this looks ideal for preparing switch rails and finishing vees. The table is tiltable for doing the front planing on switch rails. Ideally the table would extend further in front of the disc, but it may be possible to turn the machine round and work from the back. Has anyone tried one of these and is able to report? The next size up costs £76 and has a 6" disc instead of 5". The belt sander can be folded down horizontal or raised vertical. The disc table looks more substantial: 400071_xl.jpg  Any reports on this one? regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2008 20:48 from: Charles Orr
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin After the previous discussion about milling the common crossings, I invested in the £76 model from Axminster. After some experimentation and following your drawings I have now successfully made a number of different common crossings using this flat bed sander. It's proved to be a very versatile tool in other areas as well. I would recommend it. regards Charles |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2008 21:17 from: GeoffJones
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin I have the a Machine Mart Clarke Belt/Disc sander, almost certainly the same model as the £76 Axminster one just a different branding. (They also offer the smaller one as well) I find it one of the most useful tools in the workshop. I have the belt running vertically and the table permanently attached for use with the belt. I never use the disc. The discs are self adhesive and are a real pain to get off when they are worn; and if you want to change to a different grit that's the end of that disc. Changing belts is easy. I can also recommend the service from Machine Mart. I recently broke the bracket supporting the table. It's not a particulalrly strong item and I got a piece of work jammed between the belt and the table. I phoned on Friday afternoon and the part arrived in the post on Saturday morning. You may be able to do more accurate work with the disc than with the belt, but I wouldn't bet on it. The table is definitely not a precision job. I regard the machine as a very quick and useful method of getting something to the right size and shape quickly. I have a vacuum extractor attached and if you do anything with wood you really need it. You can shift an awful lot of material very quickly and it has to go somewhere. Regards Geoff |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2008 21:59 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
GeoffJones wrote: I never use the disc. The discs are self adhesive and are a real pain to get off when they are worn; and if you want to change to a different grit that's the end of that disc. Changing belts is easy.Hi Geoff, Charles, For light metalwork, e.g. making vees, I don't use the ready-made sanding discs. I buy sheets of 200 or 400 grit (roughing) and 600 or 800 grit (finishing) abrasive paper from car body supply places. Fix some strips of double-stick adhesive tape across the back of the sheet, and then cut out your own discs. It's easy to peel them off, and if only a little worn you can often re-use them. Even if not, this is much less expensive than buying ready-made discs. If the adhesive is too aggressive, you can kill some of the tack with a light sprinkling of talcum powder. An alternative is to buy spare metal faceplate(s) and have different grades of abrasive on each one. How easy would it be to change the faceplate on these models? And how true would it run afterwards? Thanks for the feedback. I'm minded to create a little photo feature showing track being built on Templot printouts, and it needs to be done with tools which are readily available. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2008 22:05 from: Charles Orr
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I'm minded to create a little photo feature showing track being built on Templot printouts, and it needs to be done with tools which are readily available.Hi Martin I think that would be a very useful feature, particularly if you show details of the construction of the common crossing. regards Charles |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2008 23:16 from: GeoffJones
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Martin The faceplate is held on with a single Allen screw through the centre into the end of the shaft. It has 1/2in long bore to mate with the shaft. Not a precision fit. But it doesn't matter if it runs a bit eccentric as long as there is no wobble and that is controlled by the 21mm diam mating face on the back end end of the faceplate boss. There is a flat on the shaft to ensure no slipping and that will also ensure that the faceplate always goes back on the same way so taking off and putting it back would presumably result in about the same amount of wobble that you started with. I clocked the wobble on mine at 0.3mm TIR near the circumference, which sounds pretty reasonable for a stick on abrasive disc. You would need to leave a hole in the centre of your disc to get to the screw, of course. It would be pretty easy; far easier than changing the paper. Regards Geoff |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2008 23:33 from: leflep
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I use a Proxxon cut-off saw for cutting accurate 45 degree cuts - especially useful for making a 90 degree crossing: http://www.tool-shop.co.uk/acatalog/Table_Top_Tools.html I haven't tried it for making vees - I use the Portsdown filing jigs for that. Peter |
||
|
posted: 28 Apr 2008 01:45 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Would a simple bench grinder be good enough for pointwork do you think, such as this? http://www.machinemart.co.uk/shop/product/details/cbg6rz-6in-bench-grinder Dave |
||
|
posted: 28 Apr 2008 15:07 from: GeoffJones
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
davelong wrote: Would a simple bench grinder be good enough for pointwork do you think, such as this?Hi Dave It is not a good idea to grind soft metals on normal grinding wheels which are intended for steel. The softer metals can melt and build up in the wheel clogging it. Bits of this can sometimes fly of which is not good, or possibly even break the wheel which could be very nasty indeed. Regards Geoff |
||
|
posted: 28 Apr 2008 23:28 from: John Lewis
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
GeoffJones wroteIt is not a good idea to grind soft metals on normal grinding wheels which are intended for steel. The softer metals can melt and build up in the wheel clogging it. Bits of this can sometimes fly of which is not good, or possibly even break the wheel which could be very nasty indeed.But what if you are using steel rail? John |
||
|
posted: 29 Apr 2008 01:44 from: GeoffJones
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
John Lewis wrote: But what if you are using steel rail?Hi Dave No safety problems then. It would probably not be as easy to use as the disc sander as you only have a 20mm wide wheel so it will be difficult to get a really even cut particularly for switches. However use it to shift most of the metal and then a few strokes with a fine file should give you a decent finish. Geoff |
||
|
posted: 13 May 2008 13:18 from: Stewart McSporran click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Screwfix are offering a bench sander similar to the £76 model mentioned above, but for £45. http://www.screwfix.com/prods/12147&cm_mmc=Clearance-_-E08W15-_-Full_DB-_-Image I've placed my order! Stewart |
||
|
posted: 13 May 2008 14:18 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Stewart McSporran wrote: Screwfix are offering a bench sander similar to the £76 model mentioned above, but for £45. Hi Stewart, Many thanks for that. The manual is available online, written in proper English, with a full spare parts list: Sander User's Manual So I've ordered one too! Also note that delivery is free if you add 3 spare sanding belts to take your order over £50. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 13 May 2008 21:41 from: Andy Reichert click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Please note, I've been supplying chemically milled P87/P4 crossings with a both blunt and properly sloped vee point for years. No tools needed at all. Wider flangeway HO/EM/00 ones will be coming this summer. Andy http://www.proto87.com |
||
|
posted: 13 May 2008 22:34 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Andy Reichert wrote: Please note, I've been supplying chemically milled P87/P4 crossings with a both blunt and properly sloped vee point for years. No tools needed at all.Hi Andy, Do you mean these frog8t.jpg  At the bottom of this page: http://www.proto87.com/proto87-turnout-parts.html ? They look good, but only for representing UK cast FB crossings. For bullhead, and bolted flat-bottom, they shouldn't have the infill between the point and splice rails. Also I can't see code 75 rail in the list? And no #5 angle? Have you considered etching only the vee component and spacer blocks, i.e. just the point and splice rails, extending to say the C chair? Users could then add the wing rails in the usual way, and having the nose of the vee hidden between the wing rails would disguise the fact that it is an etched component rather than the proper rail section. The join with normal rail could be hidden in the C chair. Some careful dimensioning of the spacer blocks could allow a really solid crossing to be soldered up with the correct flangeway provided automatically. Here's what the spacer blocks look like in a typical UK bullhead crossing: attachment.php?id=95 attachment.php?id=81 attachment.php?id=80 And here's the C chair: attachment.php?id=79 Many thanks to Phil O for the pics. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 May 2008 00:44 from: Andy Reichert click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wroteThey look good, but only for representing UK cast FB crossings.Yes to the pictures. I'm quite happy to provide crossings for "only" UK flatbottom rail fans. But I do have a BH version #8 which is not advertised that I'm happy to send samples of over. Despite the etched component aspect, I continually get complimented over here on how much better the assembled laminations represent a normal rail cross-section than do cast versions of frogs. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to get my camera to focus down to such a small area and show it on the web site. Interestingly, the new HO standard flangeway versions will have the vee as a separate item, in order to get sufficient flangeway depth. So they could likely be assembled in the way you suggest. Andy |
||
|
posted: 14 May 2008 00:53 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Andy Reichert wrote: Martin Wynne wrote:They look good, but only for representing UK cast FB crossings.I'm quite happy to provide crossings for "only" UK flatbottom rail fans. Hi Andy, The word "only" applied to the word "cast", not to "FB". For the era in which most modellers are interested, the vast majority of UK flat-bottom crossings were/are of bolted construction similar to bullhead. The widespread use of cast crossings is more recent.Yes, we would be interested to see a sample of your bullhead #8 crossings. Have you supplied many to the UK, as I've not seen them mentioned anywhere? regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 May 2008 19:34 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I wrote:So I've ordered one too! And it arrived at 9am this morning. That's excellent service from Screwfix -- free next day early morning delivery. It turns out not to be the one illustrated on the Screwfix web site, but is in fact identical to the £76 Axminster model illustrated earlier: 400071_xl.jpg I have just unpacked it out in the sunshine, and this is what came out of the box: sander1.jpg  That's a 12" plastic ruler propped on it, to give an indication of size. It's certainly a solid lump, and is easily man enough for what we want, and lots of baseboard and diy jobs too. The table is an aluminium casting, and has had the surface machined. The support bracket is also a robust casting. The slider is metal and a surprisingly good fit without significant play. However the fences are all plastic and a bit flimsy. An M5 nut appears to have gone missing, but I have plenty of those. I've not yet switched it on, so I will report again when I have it assembled and have tried it out. I'm intending to do some pics later showing vees and switch blades being planed, using Templot templates glued onto blocks of wood as work holders. First impression is good value for money at the £45 clearance price from Screwfix. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 15 May 2008 02:24 from: Stewart McSporran click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Mine was waiting when I came home and it's exactly the same as Martin's - down to the missing nut. It is pretty rough and ready; I think I'd be a bit annoyed if I'd paid nearly £80 for it. I read a good quote about that recently - "the disappointment of poor quality lasts longer than the pleasure of a good price". I wish it had said "warning 80 grade paper" on the website. I don't see 40 thou 2mm scale rails lasting long on the supplied rubble strewn paper. I've got literally hundreds of sheets of sandpaper (I picked up a 20Kg load for £15 at an auction) so I was wondering if I could make my own belts. I might try it at the weekend. Stewart |
||
| Last edited on 15 May 2008 02:25 by Stewart McSporran |
|||
|
posted: 22 May 2008 11:38 from: George Harris
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Stewart McSporran wrote: Mine was waiting when I came home and it's exactly the same as Martin's - down to the missing nut. I have one of the B&Q machines. It needed some minorrebuilding and a better fence made but was worth the ffort. I discovered that if you put the sanding wheel in boiling water the glue softens enough to be able to scrape the grit paper off and then a little work with Meths and a bathroom cream cleaner will remove the rest. I then use strips of wide double sided tape to attach the new ones. This stuff stands up to the heat of use but allows removal of the worn 400 grit paper more easily than glue. I also managed to get hold of a second wheel and put 1200 grit paper on that. I have made up my own belts from emery cloth. A tool store in Gloucester sold me a reel of 400 grit last year and with careful cleaning and the judicious use of a good quality cyanoacrylate adhesive ( not the cheapo stuff from most stores but industrial grade from an online company) I was able to make belts which lasted for a reasonable time. Broken belts I keep to use on my lathe for finishing rough turned parts. ATB George. |
||
|
posted: 23 Jun 2008 13:40 from: Paul Hamilton click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi all, I have read and then re-read this topic but as a newcomer to turnout construction I seem unable to reconcile the description of the jig usage (either in the text above nor in the instructions that come with it) and the orange and yellow diagrams shown by Martin in this and other posts. I simply cannot see that the jig produces the same result as the coloured diagram - maybe I am doing it all wrong too! First filing: - I placed the rail in the jig (1:7 for a B7 straight turnout) and filed it flush with the side of the jig. Bull head on top in this case. I grasped the filed bit and bent it in line with the original side of the rail as per the jig instructions. Then stuck it back in the same 1:7 jig with the previously filed surface pointing towards the jig and proceeded to file what was left flush with the side of the jig. I then repeated all of this again for the other part of the part of the vee (call it a splice or whatever - it would appear they are the same until you decide which way you want to arrange them for soldering) however this time I did the first filing with the rail upside down in the jig, ie with the bull head at the bootom of the 1:7 groove. I simply cannot see what else I should have done according to the instructions supplied with the jig? And then I cannot see how this remotely is meant to look like the diagrams shown further up this post in yellow and orange. I feel like a numpty (probably sound like one too!) but can anyone shed some light on this as I really want to get it! Cheers all and thanks for the putting up with such innane questions as these. |
||
|
posted: 23 Jun 2008 15:35 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Paul Hamilton wrote: I have read and then re-read this topic but as a newcomer to turnout construction I seem unable to reconcile the description of the jig usage (either in the text above nor in the instructions that come with it) and the orange and yellow diagrams shown by Martin in this and other posts. I simply cannot see that the jig produces the same result as the coloured diagram - maybe I am doing it all wrong too! Hi Paul, My apologies. I failed to make clear that my original remarks were intended to show that you don't actually need a jig, and that the filing jigs commonly available do not necessarily produce the best result. The diagrams are intended to show an alternative method to the use of filing jigs. My experience is that you don't need such jigs and it is preferable to complete the filing/sanding of the rails after assembly of them into a vee. But of course you can't do that if you use the jigs. By bending and assembling the rails on a paper template, as shown in the diagrams, you can have any crossing angle of your choice -- you are not restricted to a few fixed angles. And the vee finishes up with solid metal at the nose instead of undercut to the web. Initial assembly of the rails does not need to be especially precise or neat because any slight mismatch or stray solder is removed in the final filing/sanding. Clamping them down to a paper template on bit of wood, using a screw and a "penny" washer*, is all you need. The jigs are quite expensive, so the money saved in not needing them goes a long way towards the cost of a small belt or disc sander tool. I know that the jigs are very popular and many folks use them, so I don't want to suggest that you shouldn't do so if you prefer. It's just that I prefer the alternative methods I wrote about. If you prefer to use the filing jigs, please ignore my notes in this topic and follow the instructions which come with the jigs. If you are a newcomer to turnout construction you will find a significant variety in the methods used and proposed by different builders! *A "penny" washer is a large washer with a small hole. Available for fixing/repair of canvas furniture and similar jobs. Also available as backing washers for pop rivets. It's just as easy to make your own clamp by drilling an old coin. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: posted: 23 Jun 2008 18:15 from: phileakins
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin Screwfix are still offering the clearance deal on the sander - how did you get on with yours? Is it worth getting one in your opinion? Thanks. Phil |
||
|
23 Jun 2008 18:15 from: James Dickie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Paul, Paul Hamilton wrote: First filing: - I placed the rail in the jig (1:7 for a B7 straight turnout) and filed it flush with the side of the jig. Bull head on top in this case. Maybe the jig instructions don't make it clear, but the first filing is done with the rail on a flat surface, not in the milled slots in the jig. The instructions that I have give a table of lengths to be filed for various crossing angles. What I do is measure the appropriate distance on the rail and scribe a line across. Then use a felt tip pen to colour the rail from the end up to this mark. Now fix the rail down to a flat surface - I usually use the filing jig surface and clamp the rail with the washer supplied. The end of the rail is set flush with the end of the jig - you need to set it to rest on one of the solid portions of the jig. Now file the rail down such that it is half way through the web at the tip and angled such that you have just removed all of the felt tip pen ink. At this point you can unclamp the rail and use pliers to bend the filed section 'straight'. After this you seem to be doing everything OK. I'm not certain, but maybe making the first filing in the jig will modify the angles involved and lead to an undesired result. Cheers, James |
||
|
posted: 23 Jun 2008 20:28 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
phileakins wrote: Screwfix are still offering the clearance deal on the sander - how did you get on with yours? Is it worth getting one in your opinion? Hi Phil, Unfortunately I haven't yet had time to use it for track building  , although I did do a DIY job on it very successfully.Generally as a Far East import it seems a good buy, although obviously it doesn't compare with a professional machine costing 10 times as much. The one-sided clamp fixing of the belt tip-vertical adjustment seems a bit suspect to me, although in practice it remained firm enough. Previously I have always used a disc sander for track, although the belt option on this looks to be a better bet. The tilting work table fits either the disc or the belt, although the fixing for the belt is rather less of a precision matter, and the degree of tilt is limited by a badly positioned rivet head. But it will tilt far enough for anything we are likely to want for switch blade front planing. With a 4" belt it is ideal for 7mm scale, but perhaps a little over the top for 4mm scale. But the next size down in the Screwfix catalogue has a 1" belt, which is too narrow for 4mm switch blades. You would need to order some finer 120 grit belts and/or discs, as the machine is supplied with a 80 grit belt which is distinctly coarse for 4mm work. Even the 120 grit belt may need to have the "edge" taken off it with some rougher work before using it for 4mm rail. It's a good idea to order some extra belts anyway, as it takes you over the GBP 50 limit for free delivery. One difference I have noted from other machines in the Screwfix catalogue is that this one has a slower 1450rpm induction motor, whereas others have a 2850rpm motor. The slower speed is probably an advantage for us -- less vibration and less risk of rapidly overheating the work and melting the solder. But for woodworking a faster speed would probably be better, which may explain why this is a clearance offer. Overall I don't think I would buy this if I was a tradesman relying on such a machine to earn a living. But for modelling work it looks a good buy and will no doubt come in useful for lots of other jobs around the layout and workshop. I will provide a better report when I have actually used it for the purpose I bought it for! regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 23 Jun 2008 22:04 from: phileakins
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin My flexible friend has been given an outing.  Phil |
||
|
posted: 25 Jun 2008 08:13 from: Paul Hamilton click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
James Dickie wrote: Hi Paul, Hi James, Did exactly what you said last night and produced a reasonable version of a Vee Only my second try so I haven't expected perfection. It was much closer to matching the vee shown on my templot template of a B7 straight turnout so that was encouraging for sure. I must not have done it quite right however because as I was assembling the vee to be soldered there was a little bit of a gap between the two sections at the tip but a bit of a squeeze with the pliers and what have you seems to have resulted in a decent 2nd effort. I don't mind if I have to make up several practice ones to get it right as it is only a little bit of rail and the turnout is useless if it doesn't work I guess!Cheers for the guidance mate. |
||
|
posted: 25 Jun 2008 14:35 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, Read this lot with interest and would like to share my method (which differs from all the others) Firstly, I "bend" both of the rails much as others have described - point rail to half the vee angle, splice rail to the vee angle. Next I grip both of the rails in a smooth-jawed vice (so that the point of the vee is sticking upwards clear of the jaws) and adjust them until they are exactly aligned at the correct angle (easily achieved by using a cut-out from a spare print of the template) and are both "vertical" in terms of the rail center line and the relative "level" of the rail surfaces. (I should make a little sketch of this as it is not at first obvious how to line-up the rails - let me know if anyone wants to give it a try) I then SILVER SOLDER the rails together. Before everyone moves on to the next post saying "not for me", silver soldering is DEAD EASY given the correct materials (I use Johnson Matthey Easyflo solder and flux) and heat source - simple and cheap re-fillable torches are available for next-to-nothing from Maplins, B&Q etc. (I have a Sievert torch and a bottle of propane from the local Calorgas place - it is also useful for doing the plumbing!) [Having said that, the method might work with soft solder - but I have never tried it.] Having quenched and cleaned the joint, I then AND ONLY THEN get the file out and clean off the excess metal. For this I use a BIG (14") file with a Dead Smooth cut (= very fine very sharp teeth - NOT a worn out old wreck!). I find it is much easier to keep a big file accurate than a small one. Three or four stokes will do the job and of course, the pair of rails is much easier to hold in the vice. For me, this approach is very quick (it takes no more than 3 or 4 minutes) very accurate and has the massive advantage that the wing rails can be soft-soldered to the vee (using scraps of nickel silver) without any fear of the vee dropping to bits. Disadvantages? Well, the heat will soften the rail which then can be prone to getting bent if you are rough with it. For this reason, I tend to pre-curve the rails as an additional first step if the radius on either rail is significant. For me, another clue when making vees is this:- if you find yourself needing to take any parent metal off the head or foot of the rail for any reason, then throw it in the scrap and start again - any metal removed from here means future trouble! The only thing I ever use in this area is 1200 grit wet/dry or a glass-fibre brush for cleaning up. anything else is too aggressive. If any one is interested to know more about this, I would be very happy to take some photos as I am currently working on some track (in 00 ) for a friend.Best Regards, Howard |
||
|
posted: 25 Jun 2008 15:23 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
JFS wrote: I then SILVER SOLDER the rails together.Hi Howard, Anyone who remembers my 85A "Kit-Trak" components from the 1970s will know that all the vees were silver-soldered. I made thousands of them! Silver-soldered vees have two big advantages as you mention -- they won't fall apart when being soft-soldered into position. And they won't fall apart on the sander if you let them get a bit too hot while sanding*. But there are some disadvantages too. Silver solder is very expensive; the assembly jig must be flameproof -- your idea of using a vice sounds interesting; it needs care not to overheat the joint with the flame, otherwise the vee nose will be very soft and easily damaged when track cleaning -- just the merest hint of red heat is enough. *But the main problem is the health risk from the cadmium content. Especially if filing or sanding silver-soldered joints. See: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/eis31.pdf So on balance I would not now recommend silver-soldering for vee making. Cadmium is nasty, and I get quite worried thinking back to all the fumes and metal dust I made when making all those vees. I wouldn't do it now. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 25 Jun 2008 17:17 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin, I think your Kit-Track components are sadly missed by many - I still hear people asking about them! I remember looking at them and commenting on the excellent quality. I think your experience of this fully qualifies you as "Expert"!!! You are quite right to be cautious about the cadmium of course - but in the quantity we are talking about - even with Easyflo 1 (which is 20+% cadmium) we are talking about VERY low levels of exposure - I've just done about 8 and used about 4mm of wire! I also tend to prefer files to linishers as the job stays cool, the "filings" are much bigger than dust and there is a greater degree of control (for me at least). The HSE exist of course to council perfection - even with category two carcinogens - ie where not one real case has ever been established. So I would tend to say to people, be aware of the risks, take resonable precautions (like personal hygene and work-area cleanliness) in everything we do, and then decide the best tool for the job. Regarding your own exposure, where I used to work - also in the seventies - the coppersmiths were doing thousands of silver soldered joints every week and most of them had been doing it for decades - we never had any cases of ill effects. Which does not make it right but does give a degree of perspective! I will take picture of a job set up in the vice - not suitable for mass production, but quite adequate for the odd dozen or so! Best Regards, Howard |
||
|
posted: 25 Jun 2008 17:34 from: Paul Hamilton click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
The method mentioned Howard sounds like a real winner. As a virgin to all of this (I have filed up and soldered 2 vees in the last two weeks!) I find myself perplexed and overloaded with options as I am sure others have been particularly in the company this forum contains based on collectively thousands of vess and crossings of experience! As such, I have the jig, paid AU$49 for it actually and am keen not to have wasted that money. Should I be throwing that on eBay and hoping for the best while developing skills in one of the numerous methods offered by the vastly experienced here? Guidance most welcome on what to do tonight. Made a vee last night that frankly does not stack up to the level of scrutiny I would apply to such a critical item. I purchased a brand new file and have more than enough patience to learn how to perfect a given method. |
||
|
posted: 25 Jun 2008 18:18 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
JFS wrote: Regarding your own exposure, where I used to work - also in the seventies - the coppersmiths were doing thousands of silver soldered joints every week and most of them had been doing it for decades - we never had any cases of ill effects. Which does not make it right but does give a degree of perspective!Hi Howard, Thanks for that. I'm not too worried about the soldering fumes, because as you say the actual quantity of alloy in a typical vee is tiny compared to most industrial uses. But the metal dust is more worrying. All the vees were ground, sanded and polished using abrasives, and there was always plenty of dust around the machines. With my cup of coffee not too far away! I imagine that your coppersmiths didn't do such things to their finished joints. But I haven't made a silver-soldered vee for over 20 years now, and I'm still here to tell the tale! I note from the model engineering suppliers that cadmium-free silver solder is now available. But it requires higher temperatures and doesn't flow so well, so I'm not sure how suitable it would be for vees. No doubt you are using traditional Easyflow because it gives better results? For those thinking of trying silver soldered vees -- be careful, read the instructions. And don't burn your fingers! regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 25 Jun 2008 18:46 from: Templot User
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
----- from Mike Johnson ----- JFS wrote: For me, another clue when making vees is this:- if you find yourself needing to take any parent metal off the head or foot of the rail for any reason, then throw it in the scrap and start again - any metal removed from here means future trouble! I'm trying to make a layout in too small a space, so I'm going to have a lot of non-standard crossing angles and I don't think jigs are going to be much use to me except for filing the point blades. I'm not sure I quite understand this method. I presume the bend in the point rail is to get the web to the tip to make that strong, but then you don't file the splice rail joint to solder the webs together (like in Martin's original diagrams) so that joint must be a little weaker. Presumably that may need silver solder to make it strong enough or a just a bit more care while filing. I don't understand the phrase "parent metal" does that mean the un-bent part of the rails ? Presumably, to line everything up so the web goes right to the tip after filing takes a little practice or is there a trick to that. MikeJ |
||
|
posted: 25 Jun 2008 20:18 from: Andy Reichert click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Templot User wrote: I'm trying to make a layout in too small a space, so I'm going to have a lot of non-standard crossing angles and I don't think jigs are going to be much use to me except for filing the point blades.Sounds like an opportunity to have a great tram (or mixed) layout, instead of an overly cramped plain railway layout. Andy |
||
|
posted: 26 Jun 2008 01:03 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Mike, The only difference in the filing of the rails from that which Martin described are a) I don't pre-file the splice rail - it is just a short cut and I have never noticed any ill effects b) I bend the point rail so that the web is central in the vee - and only roughly at that! Martin describes the classic method which first appeared in print about a thousand or so years ago when P4 first hit the front page - and it is still "the right way" - I just take short cuts! By parent metal I mean the metal of the rails - the only thing which should need removing from the rail surfaces is the odd bit of stray solder - don't try to "correct" any rail-misalignment or you will end up with a low-spot in a bad place! You are right about non-standard vee angles - I would have needed a different jig for every point - for me, the emplate is the jig AND with templot they no longer need to be hand-drawn. Standard pre-printed templates do not make scale track - only better looking PECO Streamline! Photo herewith to show something of what I am talking about... NOW something I must say - vees are easy: good SWITCHES however... Regards, Howard |
||
| Attachment: attach_293_359_vee.JPG 1755 | |||
|
posted: 26 Jun 2008 01:55 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Paul Hamilton wrote: Should I be throwing that on eBay and hoping for the best while developing skills .. Paul, I think if you follow the principles which Martin described you will not go wrong. My method does not use a jig simply because I never felt I needed one. For me, jigs are about speeding up hand methods to suit the needs of mass production - and where they help - then use them! And, as Mike implied, you need a different one for every crossing on some layouts - and at fifty bucks a shot...!!! Fundamentally we are talking here about a skill - don't expect your first few to be anything but fit for scrap - but learn from each effort. Don't worry if you throw your first hundred or two away if YOU are not satisfied with them. But after a while, they WILL start coming good and then, like bike-riding, you won't forget how to do it! You will need MANY new files - I have a drawer full of different sizes, shapes, cuts etc. One thing you will need for making switches is a "Safe edge" - that is one side with no teeth - check your file now!! By the way, the "vice" I use is a very cheap thing. As a vice it is rubbish, but its sloppy, poor-fitting, non-parallel jaws are a help in gripping the two rails since it closes on one rail first then squidges over to grip the second - a big boon for those like me with only two hands! Just one small point about soft soldering using my method: I think if you were to touch the rails with a soldering iron you might move things about badly. You can't move the vee nearer to the vice jaws otherwise you can't get the template behind to align the rails. Therefore, even if soft-soldering, I think I would still use a flame as a heat source Good luck, and show us some of your efforts! Best Regards, Howard |
||
|
posted: 26 Jun 2008 03:14 from: Brian Lewis
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
JFS wrote: NOW something I must say - vees are easy: good SWITCHES however... Absolutely Howard. And I have spent as much of yesterday and today as I have energy to expend, producing 220 pairs of 7mm A blades. (Still haven't finished them). Most of the well known track builders purchase their switches and common crossings from us, (nobody buys vees any more). The exception is, whisper it softly, Solomon Normal, (the name has been changed to protect the guilty...). He makes his own crossings, but still purchases switches from us. I suppose that is praise from the 'king'? Whenever I see his handiwork, I always look for my input. Regards Brian Lewis Carrs - - C+L Finescale |
||
|
posted: 27 Jun 2008 00:53 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Lewis wrote: And I have spent as much of yesterday and today as I have energy to expend, producing 220 pairs of 7mm A blades. (Still haven't finished them).Brian, if I needed 220 pairs I think I would buy them too! I actually enjoy making my own - especially curved switches - there is something very satisfying when they come good and getting these bits right is part of the interest in "real" track making for me. But for others, I am pleased that you provide a very valuable service as Martin did in the days when Pontious was a pilot. Of course, I could not possibly know who you are talking about, but a similarly named chap - who does some very well respected stuff - did actually confess to buying in such parts in a an edition of the Recently-not-so-Finescale Rag a while back. A little aside question [hope we are not too far off-topic, Martin]. Is there such a things as a "standard" for bullhead rail in 4 mm? The stuff I am using just now was bought from your very own emporium, but comparing it with some SMP (who?) rail from some while back, yours was considerably "thicker" - indeed, theirs was a sloppy fit in your chairs. Going further back and comparing some Studiolith (WHO??) stuff, theirs was thinner still and with a noticable (and quite attractive) radius to the running surface. Any thoughts? Regards, Howard |
||
|
posted: 27 Jun 2008 03:44 from: Brian Lewis
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
JFS wrote:Brian, if I needed 220 pairs I think I would buy them too!Hi, Milling switch blades is like painting the Forth Bridge.... As soon as I have finished the 7mm A blades, I will make a start on about 450 pairs of 7mm B blades. Then it is the turn of 4mm...... I try to make each batch enough for one year each, but always seem to get caught out. Most of the track builders buy ready made components. It is a matter of time, as well as accuracy and consistency - the 220 pairs I have nearly finished now should be like peas in a pod. 'He who must not be named' normally, (Normanly?), purchases in lots of 50 sets and presumably gains comfort from this fact. Regarding rail sizes, see if you can grab a copy of MRJ 122. This has a set of table showing rail sizes - FB, BH and Bridge. Drawing rail is a remarkably crude process - I am always astonished that it comes out so accurately. Our 4mm BH rail is as near to a code 75 BS95R is I expect you can get. As you say, SMP rail is of a slightly smaller section - made to fit the the SMP track base. I hope this helps. Regards Brian Lewis Carrs - - C+L Finescale |
||
|
posted: 27 Jun 2008 16:19 from: Templot User
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
----- from Mike Johnson ----- I found a short piece of 7mm rail and made a V using Howard's method and it looks OK. I used some ordinary solder of about 180 degrees and it seems fine. Although my filing could be better, and I should have checked with the Templot print as I was filing as the tip is a little short. It's part of a tandem turnout so I've no idea what the angle is. I've tried to follow the video for tandem turnouts but it's beyond me. MikeJ |
||
| 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. |