Stores Range: Laser Cut Brook Smith Sleepers

[John McAleely]

New in the stores are Brook Smith Plywood Sleepers, which are being laser cut, rather than the older punched holes.

SL8648: Brook Smith plywood sleepers 8' 6"" (34 x 3.33mm) Laser cut sheet of 48
£1.90/sheet

SL9048: Brook Smith plywood sleepers 9' (34 x 3.33mm) Laser cut sheet of 48
£1.90/sheet

SLCT: Brook Smith plywood Crossing Timbering (12"), Laser cut
£14.00/sheet

It is anticipated that the 5'3" versions and some more timbering of different widths will be in stock shortly. I'll announce them here when they are.

Available in the members stores. Note that these prices have been revised since the original announcement.

[David B]

Presumably these have holes in, but are ply sleepers without holes available?

[James Moorhouse]

Presumably these have holes in, but are ply sleepers without holes available?

David,

Yes, the sleepers do have laser-cut holes to fit Society rivets. We did consider producing a batch without holes, but there was very little difference in price and decided not complicate the range by including these as an alternative. Besides, laser-cut sleeper strip (in addition to the wider "timber strip") will be available in due course, so if sleepers without holes are required (e.g. for off-set sleepers) they can easily be chopped to length using that.

More details and photos of the Society's new range of laser-cut sleepers and timbers will appear in February's Scalefour News.

[John McAleely]

It might be worth noting that SL8648 has a photo in the stores listing, and Jeremy has promised me one for SLCT in due course.

[John McAleely]

There are now colour photos for the three stocked items, so hopefully it's a little clearer what these products look like!

[David B]

May I suggest providing laser cut sleepers that have not been punched so that they can be used with chairs?

[James Moorhouse]

David,

How do the 'punched' holes prevent you using the sleepers with chairs?

[David B]

How do the 'punched' holes prevent you using the sleepers with chairs?

The chairs fall down the holes!

[grovenor-2685]

Better get some bigger chairs David
Keith

[David B]

I am sinking!

[RedDragon]

Surely the last thing you want to be doing is sticking chairs down over holes, you need as large a contact area as possible to ensure a secure bond.
If the society cannot provide these we are forced to go to C&L for them?

[James Moorhouse]

Surely the last thing you want to be doing is sticking chairs down over holes, you need as large a contact area as possible to ensure a secure bond.
If the society cannot provide these we are forced to go to C&L for them?

But considering that the holes on the underside of plastic chairs (2.0mm dia.) will be positioned in roughly the same place as the rivet hole (1.3mm dia.), I fail to see much, if any, contact area being lost.

chair%20-%20%20underside.JPG

[grovenor-2685]

will be positioned in roughly the same place as the rivet hole

exactly the same place if you are doing it right
Keith

[BRUNEL]

I have to say that I'm inclined to the same views as David B and Red Dragon in this matter. In my opinion, the committee is not serving the needs of members well here. With such fundamental items as sleepers where hundreds, if not thousands, are required for a layout, these should be available from the Stores in scale 8'-6" and 9'-0" lengths both with and without holes, reflecting the different track construction techniques now commonly employed.

With respect to crossing timbers, could these be made available in both scale 12" and 14" widths, please? That would enable "God's" modellers, at least, to "get it all right"! And is the price quoted correct? £14 for an A4 sheet's worth sounds a bit high to me. Unless they come gold-plated, that is!

Brunel.

[James Moorhouse]

I have to say that I'm inclined to the same views as David B and Red Dragon in this matter. In my opinion, the committee is not serving the needs of members well here. With such fundamental items as sleepers where hundreds, if not thousands, are required for a layout, these should be available from the Stores in scale 8'-6" and 9'-0" lengths both with and without holes, reflecting the different track construction techniques now commonly employed.

With respect to crossing timbers, could these be made available in both scale 12" and 14" widths, please? That would enable "God's" modellers, at least, to "get it all right"! And is the price quoted correct? £14 for an A4 sheet's worth sounds a bit high to me. Unless they come gold-plated, that is!

Derek,

But what are the practical benefits of having sleepers without holes? When we initially decided to laser cut sleepers we did look into the with/without holes option. The relative manufacturing costs were so small that there would have been no difference in sale price.

I'm afraid the £14 price for the crossing timbers is correct. I do realize that these laser cut components are more expensive than the previous range of 'hand-cut' components we sold, but the quality control is much improved. Also, considering the investment of modelling time that goes into a turnout, I'd like to think the cost of the components is relatively small.

We haven't forgotten GW modellers and 14" timbers (and it wasn't just the GWR that used these). They should be available from the Stores in the not too distant future.

[David B]

But what are the practical benefits of having sleepers without holes? When we initially decided to laser cut sleepers we did look into the with/without holes option. The relative manufacturing costs were so small that there would have been no difference in sale price.

If the difference in manufacturing costs are so small, why don't you get some done with holes and the rest without? I would be much happier knowing I can stick my chairs on to a solid sleeper and not have to keep checking to see that I have covered the hole each time. I would like to have the maximum surface of my chair in contact with the sleeper.

I ask again for solid sleepers, please. I would like to do the job properly and not make my track on sleepers designed for a different method of track building. Years ago, perhaps as long ago as Protofour days, sleepers were made available in long strips that the modeller cut to length. I was given some back in the summer, but nowhere near enough for my purposes.

£14 sounds extortionate for an A4 sheet's worth of crossing timbers.

[grovenor-2685]

I would like to have the maximum surface of my chair in contact with the sleeper.

With respect gents, the hole in the sleeper will always be within the area of the chair that does not contact the sleeper so it makes absolutely no difference to the contact area whether the hole is there or not. So why should the stores add two extra items in stock when there is no real benefit.
The 10" wide timbers are coming back into stock for those who want the trouble of cutting them to length, or have other uses for them.

As for the prices, they all shock me these days, I'm glad my track is built already.
Regards
Keith

[James Moorhouse]

I've drawn a little sketch to assuage those who fear a reduced contact area between cosmetic chair and 'punched' ply sleeper. Even with maximum gauge widening [1], there's little chance of any contact area being lost.

contact%20area.PNG

[1] The P4 standard max GW is actually 0.22mm, but Exactoscale does sell a +0.3mm gauge which is widely used.

[BRUNEL]

James Moorhouse wrote:
But what are the practical benefits of having sleepers without holes? When we initially decided to laser cut sleepers we did look into the with/without holes option. The relative manufacturing costs were so small that there would have been no difference in sale price."

James,
The practical benefits of plain sleepers may be marginal, as you say. But for me this is more about using the correct tools and materials for the job - any job. Suppose the Brook-Smith system had utilised functional chairs with plain sleepers and a later development rivets in holed sleepers. Would the Society expect adopters of the latter system to form their own holes? I doubt that; both would be on offer from the Stores, I'm sure. So why not offer both for a time now and let the members decide, especially since the difference in relative manufacturing costs is very small, and review the sales volumes in, say, three years?

I'm delighted to hear that 14" crossing timbers will be available soon, though!

Derek.

[David B]

If there were the opportunity to 'like' a post, I would 'like' Derek's.

Back to the matter - Derek is right, it is about using the right materials for the job and sleepers with holes are not the ones for the job if one is building with functional chairs.

Is it really such a problem to supply holey and whole sleepers?

[LesGros]

David B wrote:

If there were the opportunity to 'like' a post, I would 'like' Derek's...

But, then we would also require a "don't like" option, so that we could disagree without the need for a load of typing

... Is it really such a problem to supply holey and whole sleepers?

With reference to the diagrams posted by James M, is it really such a problem to build with Holey sleepers?
After all, as the diagrams show, the holes cannot be seen, and we use adhesive to hold the chairs instead of bolts; not to mention electric motors, instead of steam or diesel.

Les G

[James Moorhouse]

Sorry to be so "last word" on this thread, but no-one has so far offered any practical benefits of using sleepers without holes; only gut instinct and whim. I genuinely believe those who administer our Society listen to the membership, but we can't base our decisions on gut instinct and whim! I'm open-minded about alternative products, but I'm yet to be convinced on this one...

Red Dragon, in an earlier post, mentioned using the sleepers that C&L sell as an alternative. It seems they already stock sleepers in 0.8mm plywood without holes.

And, "Brook Smith" (no hyphen), please!

[Terry Bendall]

Having used sleepers with holes with functional chairs, I can say that there was never any problem with contact between the chair and the sleeper. As has been pointed out the hole in the sleeper is much smaller than the moulding hole in the underside of the chair.

I would hope that the Committee will always listed to what members say, and I think this has been the case.

Terry Bendall

[dal-t]

no-one has so far offered any practical benefits of using sleepers without holes;

I'm not really into this debate, although I have some track-laying coming up for a dockside display unit for which I'll use left-over EM copper-clad sleepers (since they'll be buried under cobbles and tarmac), but one aspect that strikes me is that solid sleepers have greater strength than those with two holes in them. I have certainly seen sleepers from moulded bases, which have holes where the built-in chair occurs, snap at this weakest point, and logically wooden ones would be subject to the same failure mode if suffering sufficient stress. I don't know to what extent the presence of the 'semi-tubular' rivet in traditional B-S construction replaces the lost strength in the sleeper material, but may there be an argument that if using glued chairs you should first fill the unwanted holes with blank rivets?

[David Thorpe]

I can only talk from my experience. I've recently laid the track for my layout using a large number of the old hand-cut society ply sleepers, all with holes punched in them. Using Carrs Butanone, I found no problem at all in firmly attaching chairs, whether C&L or Exactoscale, to the sleepers and they have remained firmly in place. The holes are completely covered by the chairs and are invisible. I cannot imagine a scenario where such stress is placed on a sleeper once laid to cause it to break - if that were to happen, there would be something seriously wrong elsewhere.

Having said that, if I was starting again today, I would be seriously dismayed and quite possibly put off by the current price of track components.

DT