Trackwork options for newbie

[Ade]

I told you I'd be asking "stupid" questions. Here's my first...

For my first P4 project I'm planning a small urban depot, probably based on an inglenook-style layout. Currently, I'm sketching out some ideas on Templot, which is fine, but it occurs to me that as this will be my first attempt at making my own track,I shouldn't get too carried away with complex curves, etc. So, here are my questions:

1. Would you recommend that I stick to Exactoscale or C&L "easy" turnout kits as a first step? In other words, nice straight turnouts, no complex transition curves, etc.

2. If I decide to get ambitious and want curved turnouts, will I be able to adapt the Exactoscale/C&L kits easily enough, or am I getting into the realms of having to modify /build crossings, check rails, etc, separately?

No doubt I will get more than one answer to these questions, but any/all opinions/insights will be welcome.

Thanks in advance.

[Tim V]

Most points are built from common components, so you "can" use standard kits in complex formations. However, you might be setting yourself problems, just because you can does not mean you should as a beginner try it!

[John McAleely]

If you're comfortable with an exactoscale kit as your way in to trackwork, I'd certainly recommend the experience of building it as-is. It *does* reduce the flexibility of your trackplan, but you gain the advantage of an almost guaranteed success to start with...

So my inglenook features two standard Exactoscale kits, and the next layout will have the lovely flowing trackwork... (assuming I get this one working...)

[David Knight]

Ade,

There are some who will call the approach dated but a good staring point for me was An Approach to Building Finescale Track by Iain Rice. It will allow you to build non-standard track to fit situations that the kits won't work in. That said, Mark Stapleton, who's opinion I respect, has built a couple of the Exactoscale kits and has found them to be good. It all depends on which you have more of, time or money if time is available then go with the Rice approach or a variation thereof, if money is available but not time then the kits, if both- you are a lucky dog (no slight intended).

Cheers,

David

[Guy Rixon]

Is there anything in the turnout kits that you can't order separately from C&L? I thought that the kits were a collection of stock parts plus a template. And if you have Templot, you have the template.

[JFS]

If you have not built any P4 track I would very strongly recommend the Exactoscale Kits - they are pretty much "shake the box" easy, unlike the C&L ones, which are really just a collection of bits - fine if you know what you are doing. And you are guaranteed a workable result albeit at the cost of some wallet-damage. And the best thing about using them as a starting point is that when you do graduate to building your own, you will know what "good" looks like.

I would not worry about "flowing track" - that is down to how you make use of the kits. Do a search for a layout called Longcarse West - it was built entirely from Exactoscale point kits as a "first P4" effort and, personally, I think the track looks superb. And I will repeat - this was a FIRST effort (some shaky video here) -

Best wishes,

[Ade]

Most points are built from common components, so you "can" use standard kits in complex formations. However, you might be setting yourself problems, just because you can does not mean you should as a beginner try it!

Half of me says that you are 100% correct, Tim. Trouble is the other half wants to be adventurous.

There are some who will call the approach dated but a good staring point for me was An Approach to Building Finescale Track by Iain Rice. It will allow you to build non-standard track to fit situations that the kits won't work in.

Thanks, David. Funnily enough I managed to find a reasonably priced used copy on Amazon and ordered it a few days ago. Should receive it in a few days.

It all depends on which you have more of, time or money if time is available then go with the Rice approach or a variation thereof, if money is available but not time then the kits, if both- you are a lucky dog (no slight intended).

Ha ha! Frankly, I have more money than time, so I suspect I'll try Exactoscale kits first to see how it goes. (PS: That sentence says more about how little time I have rather than how much money is sloshing around, lol!)

I would not worry about "flowing track" - that is down to how you make use of the kits. Do a search for a layout called Longcarse West - it was built entirely from Exactoscale point kits as a "first P4" effort and, personally, I think the track looks superb. And I will repeat - this was a FIRST effort (some shaky video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXjXdMnu-R4)

Thanks for that link, JFS. What a wonderful layout! I agree, the track looks superb. Actually, that's exactly the kind of grotty urban shunting layout I have in mind for my first attempt - though on a considerably smaller scale, of course. Crikey, the bar is rather high around here, no, for first efforts? :gulp:

I think JFS's comments have helped me make up my mind: I'll start with some Exactoscale kits and go from there.

Is there anything in the turnout kits that you can't order separately from C&L? I thought that the kits were a collection of stock parts plus a template. And if you have Templot, you have the template.

My concern was that I could end up designing something in Templot which is too difficult for me to build from kits, for example a curved turnout with a "non standard" radius. So, I guess need to be careful, when making my trackplan in Templot, to make sure that I keep to standard radii.

Cheers, all!

[allanferguson]

I would concur with the advice about starting with the kit as is. But don't be put off the slightly more complex curved layouts. If you can create the template in Templot(TM) then a B7 on a curve is not much different from a B7 in the straight; the same components fit. But if I can give a slight tip, do make sure that the track is not tight to gauge between the blade tips and the end of the planing. This in my experience is where many beginners have problems, and you can't get most track gauges in there. There's nothing more satisfying than seeing a piece of your stock run smoothly through a turnout you've built yourself. Good luck!

Allan F

[John Maclean]

Hi Ade,

I'm a newcomer myself. I decided to go with the exactoscale kits for my test track and I think that was the right decision for me. They didn't take too long to build and I got the satisfaction and positive feedback from having that early success. That helped to keep my enthusiasm up.

Also, being an ex-pat, I thought it better to buy a kit with everything in it rather than risk not purchasing the right bits and having to
a) pay mucho $$ in postage and
b) wait
to get the right parts second or third time round.

The kits worked fine for me and are now down on my test track. The one bit I haven't got a solution to yet is the tie bar. I tried the ones from the stores and didn't have much luck. The PCB delaminated when I tried to solder to it. I will try again with these one day, perhaps with some styrene sheet and epoxy in place of the PCB. I didn't have much success with the C&L ones either

I did have success with the TOU. I followed Keith Norgrove's design, based on the exactoscale tortoise adapter driven by a servo. I made my own control board for these based on an Arduino, just because.

All in all I found the whole process very rewarding.

Good luck,

John.

[Ade]

This in my experience is where many beginners have problems, and you can't get most track gauges in there. ... Good luck!
Allan F

Thanks for the tip, Allan.

Also, being an ex-pat, I thought it better to buy a kit with everything in it rather than risk not purchasing the right bits and having to
a) pay mucho $$ in postage and
b) wait
to get the right parts second or third time round.

Hi John,
Indeed - same here, I really want to avoid trying to source little bits and pieces here and there for reasons of delivery cost and time.

The one bit I haven't got a solution to yet is the tie bar. I tried the ones from the stores and didn't have much luck. The PCB delaminated when I tried to solder to it. I will try again with these one day, perhaps with some styrene sheet and epoxy in place of the PCB. I didn't have much success with the C&L ones either

I did have success with the TOU. I followed Keith Norgrove's design, based on the exactoscale tortoise adapter driven by a servo. I made my own control board for these based on an Arduino, just because.

Thanks for the info and link, John. Very useful.

[JFS]

The one bit I haven't got a solution to yet is the tie bar. I tried the ones from the stores and didn't have much luck. The PCB delaminated when I tried to solder to it. I will try again with these one day, perhaps with some styrene sheet and epoxy in place of the PCB. I didn't have much success with the C&L ones either

John / Ade,

Have a look in Snooze 181

http://www.scalefour.org/members/newsar ... ews181.pdf

Therein you will find two articles on tiebars - the one written by myself describes how to avoid the use of PCB when using Ambis Engineering Stretchers. The article by Mike Norris describes how to make a success of using PCB (Mikes solution is extremely well engineered and is 105% reliable - I would recommend this solution for first efforts. In Snooze 182, Mike Bolton (a certain irony in the names here!) reported on his solution which looks as good as it gets but consequently demands a some sophistication in manufacture.


Hope that helps,

[Mark Tatlow]

I would concur with the advice about starting with the kit as is. But don't be put off the slightly more complex curved layouts. If you can create the template in Templot(TM) then a B7 on a curve is not much different from a B7 in the straight; the same components fit. But if I can give a slight tip, do make sure that the track is not tight to gauge between the blade tips and the end of the planing. This in my experience is where many beginners have problems, and you can't get most track gauges in there. There's nothing more satisfying than seeing a piece of your stock run smoothly through a turnout you've built yourself. Good luck!

Allan F

I would concur with the advice to date, have a good read of Rice's book and start with a couple of Exactoscale/P4 Track Co's kits. Even if you then graduate to amendments of these to get more flowing trackwork, get some experience with the basic kits first.

I also endorse Allan's comments. The greatest problem with these kits is that the switch blades tend to slightly flex outwards in assembly and subsequent testing (as they are not restrained). It only becomes apparent that they are tight to gauge with careful measuring or inexplicable falling off at or about the switches. Exactoscale do a series of little roller gauges which come as a pack; the first of these is true gauge and then each other is 0.1mm wider than the last. Use the plus 0.1mm or even plus 0.2mm as the gauge through the switch and you will compensate this tendency of the switch blades to flex.

As a general rule track tight to gauge is always a problem, track a touch wide to gauge is never a problem (note the use of "touch" in this sentence, only a small over gauge is acceptable!).

[waveydavey]

Thanks for that link, JFS. What a wonderful layout! I agree, the track looks superb. Actually, that's exactly the kind of grotty urban shunting layout I have in mind for my first attempt - though on a considerably smaller scale, of course. Crikey, the bar is rather high around here, no, for first efforts? :gulp:

Glad you like the layout Ade. As has been pointed out Longcarse West was my first attempt at building a layout and if I can build something that looks and runs as nice as it did then anybody can. Most of the track and all the pointwork was Exactoscale (P4 Track Company) with all the points being A6 as I felt that was as small as I could go without risking buffer locking. The Exactoscale track system is very easy to use and the point kits pretty much fall together and I would recomend them to a beginner as all the possible issues have already been sorted for you. I was down to well under two hours per point by the time I'd finished.

The new Longcarse West, which is just entering the construction phase, has been designed on Templot and is an evolution rather than a revolution of the concept. This time with a bit more space to play with I'm going for A7s as my minimum points and will be building them all myself using C&L HiNi rail and mostly Exactoscale chairs and sleepers etc. with one or two sidings using C&L concrete sleepers and 2 bolt chairs to represent Modernisation Plan relaying of old sidings. I'll be filing and building the crossings and point blades myself as I now feel confident enough to do this but the ready made Exactoscale ones available from C&L would probably be a better bet for the beginner.

Cheers

David

P.S. Longcarse West 2 should be making it's first appearance at Scalefour North 2016 although I can't promise it'll be fully finished by then.

[andrew jukes]

Although I agree with all those who recommend building the first Ecactoscale kit 'as is' (and certainly endorse Allan's comments on making sure the switch area is if anything overgauge - I use a +0.2mm gauge there to be sure), curving these turnouts in a limited way is not difficult. The important thing is to understand that the 'as is' curved road is itself made up of several sections, each often of different radii and that when curving the turnout, the effect on the existing curved road radii needs to be watched.

The easiest step is to confine the modification to the closure section. Next in difficulty is the switch curve (achievable without any re-soldering for modest changes. Hardest is the crossing itself, though you can again make modest modifications without re-soldering, provided you're happy either to keep the whole soldered section unchanged or to cut through and remove the outer sections of the etch (risky, but I have done it successfully).

I have never used a template when assembling one of the kits as much of what you need a template for is provided by the moulded base units. When building one 'as is', a straight line on a flat surface plus some Blutac is all you need. When building a modified (curved) one, you need the equivalent line, now curved where appropriate, to position the 'straight’ timber ends of the base units. Obviouly, some sections of the base unit webs will need to be cut away - but be careful as you will need to plan which rails are going to need to be longer and which shorter.

I have used a little spreadsheet to work out the effect of differing amounts of curving and this (hopefully) is attached. It takes a bit of understanding but I think all that’s needed is on the sheet. It works by ensuring the splay of the diverging tracks (and hence the rail spacing on the timbers) is not altered from the turnout as supplied. The spreadsheet is set up with a B8 turnout turned into a more or less symmetrical Y turnout. The 1 in 8 splay (= 0.125 radians) for the whole turnout is still there, as 0.0616 rads. one way for the ‘straight' road and 0.0634 rads. the other way for the curved road.

Finally, while the Iain Rice book has lots of good advice, on some aspects it is actually unhelpful. Track with functional chairs is best arranged with the intention that rail or baseboard expansion or contraction will be accommodated by the rail moving in the chairs. While fixing a length of rail in one place is fine, trying to make the track ‘stronger’ by adding soldered fixings elsewhere only adds problems.

Hope that helps.

Andrew Jukes

[CDGFife]

As a fellow beginner in P4 I've been through this exact decision in the last few months. Despite advise as per most people that have already posted to go for the exactoscale kit, I decided (being contrary and also tight!) to dive straight in and build a turnout and some track from lengths of hini rail, ply sleeper/timbers and exactoscale chairs. This has turned out fine so far and actually with careful use of various gauges and templot printouts all went together quite well and relatively quickly.

That's not to say the above advise is not the way to go for you, just to observe that the alternative option can also be made to work by a (ham fisted) novice with a little care and attention.

For the record I found Iain Rice's book helpful along with a couple of long conversations with Howard at Scalefour North, but actually the best advise I had was to "purchase some gear and have a go".

Good luck

Chris

[Ade]

Wow! Thanks for all the helpful replies - very motivating and much appreciated!

I'm reading through these now and will come back with questions / comments.

Cheers.

[Ade]

John / Ade,

Have a look in Snooze 181

http://www.scalefour.org/members/newsar ... ews181.pdf

Therein you will find two articles on tiebars - the one written by myself describes how to avoid the use of PCB when using Ambis Engineering Stretchers. The article by Mike Norris describes how to make a success of using PCB (Mikes solution is extremely well engineered and is 105% reliable - I would recommend this solution for first efforts. In Snooze 182, Mike Bolton (a certain irony in the names here!) reported on his solution which looks as good as it gets but consequently demands a some sophistication in manufacture.


Hope that helps,

Thanks for the tip, Howard. I really like the look of your method, though perhaps it is more difficult than the second method method shown? Difficult to say from my armchair, lol. Seriously though, I think I'll try both and see which I prefer.

[Ade]

I would concur with the advice to date, have a good read of Rice's book and start with a couple of Exactoscale/P4 Track Co's kits. Even if you then graduate to amendments of these to get more flowing trackwork, get some experience with the basic kits first.

I also endorse Allan's comments. The greatest problem with these kits is that the switch blades tend to slightly flex outwards in assembly and subsequent testing (as they are not restrained). It only becomes apparent that they are tight to gauge with careful measuring or inexplicable falling off at or about the switches. Exactoscale do a series of little roller gauges which come as a pack; the first of these is true gauge and then each other is 0.1mm wider than the last. Use the plus 0.1mm or even plus 0.2mm as the gauge through the switch and you will compensate this tendency of the switch blades to flex.

As a general rule track tight to gauge is always a problem, track a touch wide to gauge is never a problem (note the use of "touch" in this sentence, only a small over gauge is acceptable!).

Mark,
Thanks for the advice! I've definitely come to the conclusion that I'll start with Exactoscale kits and I'll order those gauges whilst I'm at it. However, I'm not sure I quite follow your remark "the switch blades tend to slightly flex outwards in assembly and subsequent testing (as they are not restrained)". Can you explain, please? Perhaps this is something that will become blindingly obvious when I have a kit in front of me.

[Ade]

P.S. Longcarse West 2 should be making it's first appearance at Scalefour North 2016 although I can't promise it'll be fully finished by then.

Looking forward to seeing that, David. Sounds like a fascinating project!

Although I agree with all those who recommend building the first Ecactoscale kit 'as is' (and certainly endorse Allan's comments on making sure the switch area is if anything overgauge - I use a +0.2mm gauge there to be sure), curving these turnouts in a limited way is not difficult. The important thing is to understand that the 'as is' curved road is itself made up of several sections, each often of different radii and that when curving the turnout, the effect on the existing curved road radii needs to be watched.

The easiest step is to confine the modification to the closure section. Next in difficulty is the switch curve (achievable without any re-soldering for modest changes. Hardest is the crossing itself, though you can again make modest modifications without re-soldering, provided you're happy either to keep the whole soldered section unchanged or to cut through and remove the outer sections of the etch (risky, but I have done it successfully).

I have never used a template when assembling one of the kits as much of what you need a template for is provided by the moulded base units. When building one 'as is', a straight line on a flat surface plus some Blutac is all you need. When building a modified (curved) one, you need the equivalent line, now curved where appropriate, to position the 'straight’ timber ends of the base units. Obviouly, some sections of the base unit webs will need to be cut away - but be careful as you will need to plan which rails are going to need to be longer and which shorter.

I have used a little spreadsheet to work out the effect of differing amounts of curving and this (hopefully) is attached. It takes a bit of understanding but I think all that’s needed is on the sheet. It works by ensuring the splay of the diverging tracks (and hence the rail spacing on the timbers) is not altered from the turnout as supplied. The spreadsheet is set up with a B8 turnout turned into a more or less symmetrical Y turnout. The 1 in 8 splay (= 0.125 radians) for the whole turnout is still there, as 0.0616 rads. one way for the ‘straight' road and 0.0634 rads. the other way for the curved road.

Finally, while the Iain Rice book has lots of good advice, on some aspects it is actually unhelpful. Track with functional chairs is best arranged with the intention that rail or baseboard expansion or contraction will be accommodated by the rail moving in the chairs. While fixing a length of rail in one place is fine, trying to make the track ‘stronger’ by adding soldered fixings elsewhere only adds problems.

Hope that helps.

Andrew Jukes

Yes, Andrew, it does help, and it's very interesting to read a slightly different perspective. Thanks also for the spreadsheet. I'll be honest and will admit to being a little overwhelmed by it and the technical aspects of your reply - but fear not, I'm sure it will make more sense once I actually start to build something.

...but actually the best advise I had was to "purchase some gear and have a go".

Good luck

Chris

Yep, Chris, I think you're right.

[David Thorpe]

I've been using Masokits tiebars for my new layout. They're reasonably easy to put together, are visually discrete, are fairly easy to fit, and seem to work well. They're also not expensive. My only worry is that they seem a little fragile and I'm not sure how they'll stand up to heavy use.

DT

[Terry Bendall]

Track with functional chairs is best arranged with the intention that rail or baseboard expansion or contraction will be accommodated by the rail moving in the chairs. While fixing a length of rail in one place is fine, trying to make the track ‘stronger’ by adding soldered fixings elsewhere only adds problems.

Andrew and I discussed this a long time (8-9 years) ago. Whilst I fully appreciate the point (sorry) that he is making, I have used the Rice method of a soldered river every 4th or 5th sleeper very successfully with no problems. That of course does not mean that it will work for everyone.

I decided (being contrary and also tight!) to dive straight in and build a turnout and some track from lengths of hini rail, ply sleeper/timbers and exactoscale chairs.

There was a time when rivetted sleepers was almost the only option, apart from using copper clad sleepers. Many people learnt how to build track and turnouts successfully this way but they all had to start somewhere. People learnt their skills buy practice. the advanatge of this method, apart from the cost if that minor changes are easy to make. The Exactoscale kits are a very successful innovation which makes the process a lot quicker, easier and far more likely to work first time. The recent price rises do I think mean that some people will think hard about making the investment for a layout of any size.

I've been using Masokits tiebars for my new layout. They're reasonably easy to put together, are visually discrete, are fairly easy to fit, and seem to work well. They're also not expensive. My only worry is that they seem a little fragile and I'm not sure how they'll stand up to heavy use.

Ther also look more like the real thing, and are far better than the wire type in the plastic tube. I have used the Masokits stretcher bars very successfully in fully functional mode on two layouts and they have always worked well. The only failure I had was last week on Elcot Road where one bar developed a short cicuit and had to be replaced. In theory the soldered joints to the blades should pivot the cope with the curved movment of the blades and may as a result fail but over the last 8 years or so I have not had any problems with that.

Terry Bendall

[Ade]

David (Thorpe), Terry,

Thanks for the info re Masokits stretcher bars - I'll look into these, too.

[John Duffy]

I've been using Masokits tiebars for my new layout. They're reasonably easy to put together, are visually discrete, are fairly easy to fit, and seem to work well. They're also not expensive. My only worry is that they seem a little fragile and I'm not sure how they'll stand up to heavy use.

They also look more like the real thing,

Terry Bendall

Except for railway companies which used rod and not flat bar.

John

[Albert Hall]

Now that this thread has expanded to include oodles of useful information and best practice, I'm torn as to whether for future reference it is more suited to the 'Track and Turnouts' thread or here under 'Starting in P4'. Is there a way of linking between the two?

[David Thorpe]

A long long time ago made a lot of points using ply and rivet. They were fairly easy to make, were sturdy, and they worked well. By the standards of the time they also looked good. Much more recently I've made quite a few using ply sleepers with plastic chairs and I found them rather more awkward although the end result looked even better. However, I'd rushed straight into making them without reading any "How To" articles and I found that with some I was getting frequent derailments. I cured this by making up the points in a different order. First the V crossing went onto the Templot template, then the wing rails, then the switch rails. Only after that did I add the stock rails and the check rails. The "bad" ones I'd made by putting in the V first, then the stock rails, and I think that that had given rise to gauge narrowing.

DT