Hello, I'm new to the 009 Society/forum, and currently an "armchair modeller" having not done any real modelling for 40 years. Apologies in advance for all the questions!
I am going to model Pendre station on the Talyllyn Railway as it stands today (I live just a few hundred yards from it). Having learned an immense amount about prototype track from Ian Rice's book on finescale track and Boyd's book on the railway, I realised that TR no longer use chairs except on points.
So I am looking for guidance on scratch-building (indeed it was seeing scratch-built track that whet my appetite). I have read much on the use of copper-clad sleepers, but have reservations about the aesthetics – wouldn't ply sleepers look better?
Having not even seen a layout in 009 other than online, how do people model flat bottom track? Is gluing the rail to ply sleepers an option?
I am planning to use code 55 rail (which is very close to scale I believe) - is the track gauge supplied by CL Finescale going to work for me? Does anyone supply a 3 point gauge?
Many thanks in advance for any advice and apologies if all these questions have been asked before.
A couple of thoughts here if I may, based on building the track for my own layout - somewhat languishing at the moment due to a lack of round tuit for sorting out how to operate the points!
I used Code 55 steel flat bottom rail purchased from C&L. This was a few years ago so I'm not sure if they list it on their website anymore but it might be worth dropping them an e-mail to ask. For sleepers I used copperclad ones for 3 mm scale / 12mm gauge from 3mm SMR - they do pre-cut sleepers for plain track and a milled sheet of copperclad sleepers that can be cut to length for point timbering.
As to track gauges I didn't know that C&L did gauges for 9mm gauge track so can't comment on it. The 'roller' gauges I used were some that I'd had for some time, picked up from the 009 Soc. Sales stand and of unknown origin, and probably made for a bigger rail section so I had to be careful when gauging rails that the code 55 rails was in the right side of the slots in the gauge so that the ridges (acting as spacers) did the job. What I did find useful were a pair of die-cast 3-point gauges made by Micro Engineering in the US for code 55 rail and 9 mm gauge (they also do other combinations of rail section and track gauge). At the time I couldn't find a UK supplier who were prepared to answer my e-mails (!) so ended up buying them from Fast Tracks in Canada.
As you may have guessed by now I soldered the rails to the sleepers, which were then gapped (combination of slitting disc in a mini drill and a triangular file). If there isn't too much solder used it looks good - it's unlikely one would see the head of a track spike in 4 mm scale - and one can add a blob of solder to replicate a chair with care. The result is fairly robust, and can also be built off the layout.
That being said there is an exhibition layout - 'Castle Carinion' - where the builder had used code 40 rail glued down to walnut sleepers with (iirc) impact adhesive that does look rather nice, but whilat I had a chat with him a few years ago I can't recall what adhesive he had used.
As an additional suggestion it might be worth you having a look at a copy of the 2 mm Scale Association's book "Track - How it works and how to model it" (I think it's available to non-members). Whilst it might duplicate some of what Iain Rice says in his book it is very firmly aimed at the smaller gauges (they use 9.42 mm), and personally I found it more helpful than Iain's book aimed at 4mm standard gauges (16.5, 18.2 or 18.83 mm).
Firstly welcome to the Society.
I was drafting a reply, but got distracted, then timed out. However, Julien has said everything I was going to and more - plus he has done it! I'll leave it there and wish you good luck. Please tell us how you get on.
Julian
Hugh Milward hand-built all his track in "Bridges" (see the recent NEWS articles) Although he hasn't described his process, I'm sure you could contact him for advice
Welcome Graham!
I have seen some modellers use occasional copper-clad sleepers (ie. sufficient for strength and maintain gauge) with wooden ones in between. I forget where but it may have been the old hand-laid track group on Yahoo.
Other possibilities are to scratch grain in the copper, though grain is probably hardly visible in 4mm scale and is perhaps only included on commercial track "because it should be there" and is very over scale. However if grain is wanted, then if a thin skim of plastic wood or other filler is applied over the whole of the sleeper top when filling the gap made by gapping the copper, it might take being scratched to make grain.
I made my own 3-point gauge, though it has seen very little work. I'll try to take another photo as the one I've just done is blurred.
I am trying to recall the author (Peter Katzen ? ??? - it doesn't come up in a search so I must have it wrong) who made false sleepers with studs which were set below the track bottom and hence buried in ballast, and then added cosmetic sleepers in the gap. Admittedly it was 7 mm scale where the effort might actually be noticeable.
Edit:
Second attempt at taking photos was better. Here is the 3-point gauge along with two simple block gauges filed out of 1.5 mm or 1/16" brass on a short length of "standard" track I made for gauge checking (with rather too many sleepers).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50065785867_fa0504f326_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jh9eSB)DSCF5704 (https://flic.kr/p/2jh9eSB) by Graeme Dunbar (https://www.flickr.com/photos/95337893@N05/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50064968878_89033ab6f4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jh541A)DSCF5706 (https://flic.kr/p/2jh541A) by Graeme Dunbar (https://www.flickr.com/photos/95337893@N05/), on Flickr
For the gauge I used three brass screws nut I forget if I had to file the slots slightly or squeeze the head a bit to narrow them.
Gentlemen,
Thank you for the warm welcome and the excellent replies!
Quote from: JulienW on July 01, 2020, 10:08
A couple of thoughts here if I may, based on building the track for my own layout - somewhat languishing at the moment due to a lack of round tuit for sorting out how to operate the points!
It will be good to see your solution when you do find some round tuits - I'm sure I've got a few in a box somewhere ;)
Quote from: GraemeD on July 01, 2020, 16:26
For the gauge I used three brass screws nut I forget if I had to file the slots slightly or squeeze the head a bit to narrow them.
That's really nicely made Graeme! I'm more of a carpenter than engineer, but I just might try making my own gauges. Apart from the 9mm, are the other dimensions critical? I'm thinking about when used on curves in particular.
There is much food for thought and things to check. I'd best get started.
I did the copper clad/wooden sleepers on my hand built track. Every fourth sleeper was copper clad. Used coffee stirrers for the wooden ones so they were genuine wood sleepers!
Quote from: Graham Cornfield on July 01, 2020, 19:56
Quote from: GraemeD on July 01, 2020, 16:26
For the gauge I used three brass screws nut I forget if I had to file the slots slightly or squeeze the head a bit to narrow them.
That's really nicely made Graeme! I'm more of a carpenter than engineer, but I just might try making my own gauges. Apart from the 9mm, are the other dimensions critical? I'm thinking about when used on curves in particular.
There is much food for thought and things to check. I'd best get started.
It was a bit of practice exercise (or displacement activity :) ) reasoning being if I could manage to get my filing up to scratch I might be able to tackle a point (which I haven't done yet). Also I could not find a suitable 3-point gauge for sale.
The dimensions are not critical I think (other than the gauge!) The base of the triangle was guesswork based on photographs, such as in Iain Rice's PCB track book which is my primary source. Calculating the gauge widening is just a bit of geometry (or simply draw and measure using compasses), but knowing how much is needed is another thing. Empirically, I took the dimensions as roughly that of a rigid 0-6-0 with the middle wheel on the inner rail and front and rear wheels on the outer rail. That seemed a bit excessive so I reduced it a bit so it is 20 mm which is a nice round number. Looking end on at a loco on the track there is a fair bit of side-to-side play between rail edges and wheel flanges anyway. On commercial chassis there is often also quite a lot of side to side axle play making many locos have effectively Gölsdorf (if that is the right name) axles. It is particularly noticeable on the Bachmann Skarloey where the middle axle has significant side to side play.
I'm not sure how critical the screw slot width is. There is a little bit of side play but possibly less than on the commercial roller gauges I have.
I've noticed from the photos how big the holes are. I had a very limited range of drills a the time and also the one at the apex was oversize to allow for adjustment. Also I managed to get that screw a bit squint! Anyway it slides along the rails quite nicely without much play or rattling. If I make more I might try using PCB material for the plate.
Thanks Graeme, I like your pragmatic approach!
The track gauge (9mm) is fairly critical, and the 'base' dimension of the gauge sets the amount of gauge widening on curves. I suspect that there is some mathematical way of working all this out as the 3 point gauges for a variety of track gauges all seem to be of similar proportions (length of base in proportion to track gauge), but I have yet to find on the 'net, or work out from first principles, what the magic formula is!
I also suspect that with the coarse track & wheel standards most 009ers seem to use - a heady mix of 1960s & 70s Arnold through to up to date (and finer) things from Japan - having a slot in a track gauge (roller or 3-point) that is a 'sloppy' fit on the rail head might just be something one can get away with. However I must admit that the engineer in me is a little uncomfortable with that concept, especially when all of the track gauges I've seen (and used) tend to be made for specific rail sections, and therefore are designed to hold the rails against any sideways movement that a soldering iron may apply.
That's not to say that a 'sloppy' gauge will not do the job, as my roller gauges were, I suspect, made for code 75 or 80 rail, with the result that the code 55 rail I was using was a sloppy fit. Whilst the slots were wider than my code 55 rail head however, the ridges that gauged the flangeway gaps didn't care what the rail section was (in fact I have an old Saltford Models roller gauge that is just a cylinder with 2 ridges), so I just needed to ensure that the rails were set tight up to the ridge (rather than somewhere in the slot). My 3-point gauges were designed for code 55 rail, and I must admit that I tended to rely on those most (only really using the roller gauges to set flangeways in point work) as I didn't need to check where the rail was in the groves and get it into the right place with a 3rd (or even 4th) hand.
Having just checked the Fast Tracks website (https://www.handlaidtrack.com/micro-engineering-track-gauge) for prices of the MicroEngineering gauges they are only US$5.85 each (having a pair would be useful) and postage was quoted at US$13.17, which works out a about £20 all in (not including any import duties, but £20 might be below the limit for this).
To use an analogy it might be a little like using a flat blade screwdriver on a cross head screw - it can be done, but the job is made a whole lot easier with a cross head screwdriver of the right size to fit the screw's head.
And whilst i think of it, don't forget to use the 3-point gauge the right way around (with the single leg on the inside of the curve) unless you want 'gauge narrowing'...
Thanks Julien.
The 3-point gauges shown on the Hand Laid Track web site have proportions roughly similar to my "guess". It mentions NMRA standards, and I should have thought to look before I made my one.
I found this: https://nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-8.pdf (https://nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-8.pdf)
The lengths of the gauges are longer than I used. Also they show three different gauge widths depending on track radius. I had assumed the gauge would increase the widening naturally as the radius tightened.
I've got as far as converting US units into something sensible with the intention of drawing some triangles and working out some sines and cosines to find out how much widening is actually taking place.
radius gauge length
inches mm inches /32 mm
10 254 1 1 26.19 "small"
12.5 317.5 1 5 29.37 "medium"
17 431.8 1 11 34.13 "large"
Edit:
I had a go at calculating what I think is the gauge widening using the three gauges above with the curve of the radius they are intended for and get odd results - the widening is greater for the larger radii used with their corresponding radii! :-\
small gauge with small radius: 0.332 mm widening
medium gauge with medium radius: 0.345 mm widening
large gauge with large radius: 0.341 mm widening
Clearly we are not doing the same calculation and I have to assume I'm the one that's wrong. :-[
Using the small gauge will all the radii here gives widening of:
0.332 mm small radius
0.274 mm medium radius
0.201 mm large radius
Edit again.
Hmmm! ??? The NMRA recommendation RP-8 diagram shows the curve radius to be the track centreline but if the value shown in the table is taken to be the radius of the outer rail, the gauge widening is pretty the same for all three radii used with and their respective gauges (0.338 mm, 0.340 mm, 0.337 mm).
Not that this has any relevance given the accuracy of my construction. ;D
Julien, Graeme, thanks again for your input/research and recommendations. They are very much appreciated - I may yet get out of the armchair!
This is very interesting stuff if you are interested in building track. I like the guage you built Graeme.
I had a nose around the NMRA website.
It seems the "S-8 Classes" mentioned for the different gauge lenghts roughly correspond to Fine Scale, Intermediate, and Coarse Scale. So it is perhaps not surprising if the Fine Scale track has bigger radius curves but also more gauge widening.
Frank
I have Fast Track point forming jig for many years now and have built quite a few turnouts/ switches. They are a great help.
Robin.
I bought a copy of "Track How it Works and How to Model It" and realised just how much I enjoy the whole track thing!
(https://i.imgur.com/P4eGK19.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SC7bCyEr.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Rm32drqr.jpg)
Opps! I'm loosing it.
Image 1. Micro Engineering code 70 track. Every 5th sleeper is soldered to copper clad strip.
Image 2. Just a side profile. The little wagon is from the 009 society. Modified.
Image 3. Scratch built curved turnout, using Micro Engineering code 70 track and Fast Track frog and point jig.
Robin.
Nicely done Robin.
It's interesting the width of the railhead. I remember, way back in the late 80s, early 90s, we mixed ME code 70 and Peco code 80 (83?) on the first of the stations on the Dutton Bay Tramway, and discovered that the head of the ME code 70 rail is significantly wider than than the regular Peco code 80. Only noticeable when seen from above, of course, but that's how most model railways are mostly seen.
Lovely little cameos too - and hats off for the curved point. I'm most envious.
That's really nice work Robin!
Thanks!
Yes, your right. The the ME track is broader. I never even checked that. I just make it all work.
The curved track was suppose to lead into my engine shed, but I ran into a small problem.. Peco wheels. As I have quite a few scratch built wagons on Peco frames the wheels bind through the guard rails. Wheels will be replaced. Kato and Micro Engineering are not a problem.