Joggled Stockrails

Discuss the prototype and how to model it.
Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/undercut blade considerations

Postby Julian Roberts » Sat May 25, 2019 5:29 pm

I'm extremely grateful, Martin and Tony, for your responses to my questions on this thread. To me you are the ultimate authorities on track matters. I see no paradox if there is a minute subtle disagreement between you, on the height of the undercut blade at its tip. So I'm writing this simply to point out where experts differ. The gauging point of 9/16" below rail level in Martin's diagram is 18/32" (scale 0.19mm). The reduced rail height described by Tony of 1/32" under 3/4" is 23/32" (scale 0.24mm). The difference is 5/32", scale 0.05mm, or 0.002". Tony has the rail height rising to full height over the whole length of the planing while Martin's method sees the full height being lost towards the tip. Tony's full description of his method at viewtopic.php?t=5727. His photo shows the subtlety of what is being discussed
Switches 45.jpg
Switches 45.jpg (93.24 KiB) Viewed 1497 times


Please don't think I'm being mischievous. All masters of their craft do things in minutely different ways.

Dave, Tony talks about the issue you mention on the same page I think. Yes I'm a real bore I know but a life of playing in orchestras gives you a wearisome awareness of tiny details being the difference between the special and the ordinary*...but in music the differences are often indefinable as well as unmeasurable, just as in all the arts ;)
*and, equally, between one sort of excellence and another!

davebradwell
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby davebradwell » Sun May 26, 2019 9:18 am

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was being pedantic, Julian and I certainly never meant to imply you were a bore. You're quite difficult to persuade, however! I think trackwork is one of those areas where shape is much more important than the last gnats of accuracy (perhaps a bit like music) as we've designed a small tolerance into our standard. This applies to the general flow of the thing as well as the smaller details like blade tips. The thread has certainly brought clarity. My aim when joining-in was merely to persuade folk that the only reason for using a joggle is when copying a prototype feature.

I've attached a prototype drawing which confirms what has been written.
Attachments
Image (64).jpg

Dave Franks
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:02 am

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Dave Franks » Sun May 26, 2019 11:09 am

Interesting discussion, I must admit I was shown how to file switch blades many years ago and read similar in the magazines since. The NER drawing seems to confirm my way of doing things too, I have shown others how I do it over the years for all three 4mm gauges and have been seen to work, any derailments have been down to B2B problems or mixed wheel specifications, (in OO or EM anyway). On my railway 'Wharfeside' which you have seen running Julian I strived to get the pointwork to be reliable by following the same proceedure of filing accurately and setting out with decent gauges, yes 'Wharfeside' is EM but the same applies to P4, filing accurately and consistantly, follow that drawing and you should have a sweet running layout, not forgetting the wheels and decent suspension too.
The party trick on Wharfeside..... ;)
Youtube clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vNZioYlss

Dave Franks

Tony Wilkins
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:57 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/undercut blade considerations

Postby Tony Wilkins » Sun May 26, 2019 11:58 am

Julian Roberts wrote:I'm extremely grateful, Martin and Tony, for your responses to my questions on this thread. To me you are the ultimate authorities on track matters. I see no paradox if there is a minute subtle disagreement between you, on the height of the undercut blade at its tip. So I'm writing this simply to point out where experts differ. The gauging point of 9/16" below rail level in Martin's diagram is 18/32" (scale 0.19mm). The reduced rail height described by Tony of 1/32" under 3/4" is 23/32" (scale 0.24mm). The difference is 5/32", scale 0.05mm, or 0.002". Tony has the rail height rising to full height over the whole length of the planing while Martin's method sees the full height being lost towards the tip.

Hi Julian.
I am not at all surprised that there are small differences in the full size dimensions Martin and I quote. Martin is probably quoting from GWR standards and I from BR standards. Other railway companies almost certainly used different dimensions as well.
The 23/32" and 1/2" are for Undercut and Straight cut switches respectively so is a bit like comparing chalk and cheese.
The BR dimensions also applied to early BR Flat Bottom switches as well.
Regards
Tony.

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Julian Roberts » Mon May 27, 2019 9:34 am

Dave (Bradwell) there are two gradients on the blade tip of your elevation drawing. How far below rail level is the tip of the blade on your drawing, how far is it till it is at full height and how far along does the first gradient end? I assume the answer to the 2nd and 3rd question varies according to the switch length...

Yes there is extra tolerance in P4 but none where a flange is against the rail, on curving pointwork for example.

In haste...
Attachments
Screenshot_2019-05-27-10-08-54.png

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Martin Wynne » Mon May 27, 2019 10:39 am

Julian Roberts wrote:Dave (Bradwell) there are two gradients on the blade tip of your elevation drawing. How far below rail level is the tip of the blade on your drawing, how far is it till it is at full height and how far along does the first gradient end?

Hi Julian,

Here are some better quality scans. Bear in mind that this is a pre-group (pre-1923) drawing, for the North Eastern Railway only:

ner_tips1x.png
ner_tips1x.png (266.33 KiB) Viewed 1336 times


ner_tips2x.png
ner_tips2x.png (234.7 KiB) Viewed 1335 times

The full drop at the tip is 3/4" (3/8" + 3/8"). I can't see a dimension for the final drop length, but scaling from the drawing it is 7".

The top planing runs out at the position where the rail is 2.1/4" wide. i.e. shorter than the full side planing length for 2.3/4" wide rail.

cheers,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Julian Roberts » Mon May 27, 2019 4:13 pm

That looks similar/identical? to the diagram further down on your link earlier Martin from a contributor Richard R.

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?i ... d=6#p19571
Attachments
Screenshot_2019-05-27-17-03-06.png

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Martin Wynne » Mon May 27, 2019 4:37 pm

Julian Roberts wrote:That looks similar/identical? to the diagram further down on your link earlier Martin from a contributor Richard R.

Hi Julian,

They are actually from David Rayner:

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?i ... d=6#p19573

David runs "Off The Rails" for 3-D printed chairs, etc: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/otr

Yes, he seems to have used the NER drawing as the basis for those diagrams. The 82% length figure is derived as 2.25/2.75, as on the drawing.

David has a useful page of dimensions for REA (SRE) switches, based on the NERA LNER reprint, at: http://otr.offtherails.x10.mx/

cheers,

Martin.
Last edited by Martin Wynne on Mon May 27, 2019 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/undercut blade considerations

Postby Julian Roberts » Mon May 27, 2019 7:54 pm

Dave Franks wrote:Interesting discussion, I must admit I was shown how to file switch blades many years ago and read similar in the magazines since. The NER drawing seems to confirm my way of doing things too, I have shown others how I do it over the years for all three 4mm gauges and have been seen to work, any derailments have been down to B2B problems or mixed wheel specifications, (in OO or EM anyway). On my railway 'Wharfeside' which you have seen running Julian I strived to get the pointwork to be reliable by following the same proceedure of filing accurately and setting out with decent gauges, yes 'Wharfeside' is EM but the same applies to P4, filing accurately and consistantly, follow that drawing and you should have a sweet running layout, not forgetting the wheels and decent suspension too.
The party trick on Wharfeside..... ;)
Youtube clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vNZioYlss

Dave Franks


Great that you are able to join in discussions now Dave! I can't get your video for some reason. If it's your 60 wagon train reversing round the layout at 60mph (as I have seen) that's a challenge for us folks! And yes your points on 00 layouts too work and look perfectly. (Can't remember the layout name featuring WCML Upper Clyde Valley. )

Dave (Bradwell) - my turn to apologise. You didn't imply anything about me. I meant I may have earned that reputation on this Forum from other discussions. Thanks for drawing. It's the small details I couldn't read but the shapes are the important thing. They're clear enough.

Martin, thanks (yet again for the many-th time). I had some vague notion the REA track designs were based on NER ones....?

Cheers

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/undercut blade considerations

Postby Julian Roberts » Wed May 29, 2019 7:18 pm

Tony Wilkins wrote:
Julian Roberts wrote: The gauging point of 9/16" below rail level in Martin's diagram is 18/32" (scale 0.19mm). The reduced rail height described by Tony of 1/32" under 3/4" is 23/32" (scale 0.24mm). The difference is 5/32", scale 0.05mm, or 0.002". Tony has the rail height rising to full height over the whole length of the planing while Martin's method sees the full height being lost towards the tip.

I am not at all surprised that there are small differences in the full size dimensions Martin and I quote. Martin is probably quoting from GWR standards and I from BR standards.
The 23/32" and 1/2" are for Undercut and Straight cut switches respectively so is a bit like comparing chalk and cheese.
.


Was Martin talking about Straightcut switches? I thought he was trying to dissuade me from them and joggles. ...

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/undercut blade considerations

Postby Martin Wynne » Wed May 29, 2019 7:29 pm

Julian Roberts wrote:Was Martin talking about Straightcut switches? I thought he was trying to dissuade me from them and joggles. ...

Hi Julian,

I've lost track of what you were asking me. Image

The 9/16" gauging line below the rail top applies to all track, not only switches. It is where you measure the track gauge on any track.

I didn't extract it from any switch drawings.

cheers,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Tony Wilkins
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:57 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Tony Wilkins » Wed May 29, 2019 10:04 pm

Hi Julian.
Don't get Straight cut and Straight switches confused. It took me a while to appreciate the difference.
Straight switches can be either undercut or straight cut, but only straight cut are used with a joggle.
Undercut switches are used with a set.
As Martin has already explained, the gauging line is a constant dimension independent of the planing dimensions although relevant.
Regards
Tony.

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Julian Roberts » Thu May 30, 2019 8:42 am

zero_tip_end.png
zero_tip_end.png (29.24 KiB) Viewed 1097 times


Martin your sketch is showing an undercut switch with the top of the tip at the gauging line 18/32" below rail top level with an effective width of zero. Tony describes this tip top to be 23/32" below rail level.

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Paul Townsend » Thu May 30, 2019 9:56 am

Julian Roberts wrote:zero_tip_end.png

Martin your sketch is showing an undercut switch with the top of the tip at the gauging line 18/32" below rail top level with an effective width of zero. Tony describes this tip top to be 23/32" below rail level.


I fear the perfect world of turnouts you are trying to join is unreal in practice.
Currently available P4 type rail is nothing like the shape in your last diagram. The gauge corner is much sharper and the top is nearer to flat. Sadly this applies to NS, HiNic and steel supplies that I have examined.

I have moaned about this for years to all our suppliers but no-one seems to want to get new dies made :(

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Martin Wynne » Thu May 30, 2019 10:50 am

Julian Roberts wrote:Martin your sketch is showing an undercut switch with the top of the tip at the gauging line 18/32" below rail top level with an effective width of zero.

Hi Julian,

My sketch was intended to show that IF the tip is reduced to zero width at the gauging depth, then the gauge is unaffected and no joggle is needed. And that it can have a finite thickness below that depth in a practical model switch without affecting the measured track gauge.

It wasn't intended to suggest that this is the correct tip depth for any specific prototype because prototypes vary.

Please note Paul's point about model rail* not looking much like the prototype section, tending to have a more square top corner radius and thicker web. I have made this point several times. You are not going to be able to replicate prototype switch planing in 4mm scale even with CNC milling, unless you get your own rail section drawn.

*I haven't checked the corner radius on the new Peco bullhead rail. As far as I know it is not (yet?) available separately.

cheers,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby grovenor-2685 » Thu May 30, 2019 1:16 pm

Provided that the flange root radius is close to spec, then a smaller gauge corner radius on the rail helps with switch blades as it will hold the flange tips further out from the rail giving a bit more tolerance on the switch tips.
Rgds

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Julian Roberts » Thu May 30, 2019 9:01 pm

Martin Wynne wrote:Hi Julian,

My sketch was intended to show that IF the tip is reduced to zero width at the gauging depth, then the gauge is unaffected and no joggle is needed. And that it can have a finite thickness below that depth in a practical model switch without affecting the measured track gauge.

It wasn't intended to suggest that this is the correct tip depth for any specific prototype because prototypes vary.


Ahh! - the penny drops. I thought you were saying the top of the tip of a practical model switchblade shouldn't be below the gauging line. Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding.
Please note Paul's point about model rail* not looking much like the prototype section, tending to have a more square top corner radius and thicker web. I have made this point several times. You are not going to be able to replicate prototype switch planing in 4mm scale even with CNC milling, unless you get your own rail section drawn.


Don't think I'm fixated on modelling the prototype to the nearest gnat's whisker! I'm solely interested in what will work to get ZERO derailments given properly suspended and weighted vehicles. It seems to me the NER pattern of the horizontal profile is eminently practical and sensible, as is Tony's.

Getting accuracy of the height of the tip top and then installing it in such a way that the height is still accurate in relation to the stock rail is pretty tricky. I'd say to be within 0.05mm either way would be good going.

I was looking in vain for your diagram of the prototype wheel/rail interface on another thread. I think you must have deleted it. It was something like my drawing posted a few days ago, though without the switchblade.
20190523_114131-1.jpg

Which as you say is all very well in theory but the model actuality is rather different. As if I knew that Paul was going to make his point, last night I tried to photograph this model wheel/rail interface. Even with the posh camera on my daughter''s Huawei phone :o it is pretty impossible to photograph without a proper manual control of the focus. I reckon there's horribly little room for a blade to get between the flange and the rail below the gauging line, when the flange is against the rail. That gauging line looks as though it may be lower down the flange than the theoretical roughly half way 0.19mm. The photo of the RH wheel seems to show no gap at all between flange and rail all the way down. More usual however was the rather healthier situation shown of the LH wheel.

If I have worked it out correctly Tony's blade will rise to the gauge height after about 6mm on a B switch, which is pretty much the same distance along the blade as where I said there was room for 0.2mm blade thickness.

Anyway, obviously it can be done, and I've done three such undercut style turnouts myself that work very successfully on our group layout.

.
Attachments
IMG-20190530-WA0011-1.jpg
IMG-20190530-WA0011-1.jpg (52.04 KiB) Viewed 1017 times
IMG-20190530-WA0029-1.jpg
IMG-20190530-WA0029-1.jpg (120.31 KiB) Viewed 1017 times

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/undercut blade considerations

Postby Julian Roberts » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:47 am

Martin Wynne wrote:
Julian Roberts wrote:Dave (Bradwell) there are two gradients on the blade tip of your elevation drawing. How far below rail level is the tip of the blade on your drawing, how far is it till it is at full height and how far along does the first gradient end?

Hi Julian,

Here are some better quality scans. Bear in mind that this is a pre-group (pre-1923) drawing, for the North Eastern Railway only:

ner_tips1x.png

ner_tips2x.png
The full drop at the tip is 3/4" (3/8" + 3/8"). I can't see a dimension for the final drop length, but scaling from the drawing it is 7".

The top planing runs out at the position where the rail is 2.1/4" wide. i.e. shorter than the full side planing length for 2.3/4" wide rail.

cheers,

Martin.


Hi Martin

Last question - how long is this blade? What I am wondering is whether the 7 inches of extra top planing at the tip is a constant whatever the length of blade or varies according to that length.

As I've said it's not because I hope to model it precisely but more simply as a matter of interest to compare with the BR design.

Cheers

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/Undercut blade horizontal planing

Postby Julian Roberts » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:21 pm

How long is the blade of Dave Bradwell's drawing - is it an A, B, C....? Well, given that the extra slope towards the tips is 7 inches the drawing nearest equates to a B blade as far as I can work it out, using a vernier on the image on the screen.

I thought I'd draw out the two types of horizontal planing we have been shown. I had previously roughly worked out the intersection of Tony's BR plane would be where the blade in 4mm scale could be around 0.2mm. My maths skills don't extend to working out where the double gradient of Dave's NER plane would intersect with the numbers of the thickness of the blade.

So the drawing is one square per millimetre in 4mm scale from left to right, but up and down one square represents 0.1mm. So the horizontal plane is a tenfold exaggeration. But I think the drawings are a valid way of seeing how the gradients work in relation to the gauge height.

So the interesting thing (that surprised me) is that if done precisely the NER tip while 0.01 lower than the BR one, rises quickly and is at the gauge height only 1mm in from the tip, whereas the BR plane meets gauge height 8mm from the tip.

These gradients will apply whatever the length of the blade in proportion to the blade - though I've had no confirmation or otherwise that the 7 inches is a figure that is in proportion to the blade length, but I guess so.

My general point is this. In general terms - on the prototype, the switch rails, as they get thinner towards the tip, cannot take the weight of the vehicle and descend below rail level, and gauge level. On the 4mm scale model, the point at which the prototype cannot bear weight is the point at which our blades should start to get too thin to be viable, so similarly descend.

The BR horizontal plane meets the gauge height at 8mm from the tip (9mm from the set) where there is room for 0.27mm blade width, which is fine. However the NER blade meets the gauge height at 1mm from the tip where there is room for only 0.66mm width blade.

Of course I'm not saying that Dave's points which I have seen work beautifully are suddenly going to stop working. As you said Dave, the drawing is a guide to the general flow,not a precise instruction. There is plenty of leeway in P4 if the flanges are centred before the turnout, in which case the leading flange is unlikely to contact the diverging switch until past the critical first few mm, even if the drawing was followed exactly.

All these distances are for a B switch but if I get this right the place where the horizontal lines meet the gauge height will have the same blade thickness whatever the switch length.

All this is half guesswork so if it's rubbish please do say! Anyway this is all just trying to understand what a literal interpretation of the prototype would be, accurately carrying it out is another matter entirely!

By the way I may have muddled up the terms horizontal and vertical planing.
Attachments
20190602_212712.jpg
The red line shows the bottom of the flanges. The blue line is the gauge height. Along the top are the distances from the set, and the maximum blade thickness at gauge height (0.03mm per 1mm assuming rail width 0.9mm)

allanferguson
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby allanferguson » Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:44 am

"My general point is this. In general terms - on the prototype, the switch rails, as they get thinner towards the tip, cannot take the weight of the vehicle and descend below rail level, and gauge level. On the 4mm scale model, the point at which the prototype cannot bear weight is the point at which our blades should start to get too thin to be viable, so similarly descend. "


Surely the switch blades are not going to bear the whole weight of the wheel until the switch blade is wider than the wheel tread?

Allan F

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/horizontal planing of undercut blade

Postby Julian Roberts » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:35 am

allanferguson wrote:"
Surely the switch blades are not going to bear the whole weight of the wheel until the switch blade is wider than the wheel tread?

Allan F


Allan - most ideas I have on this subject (at least, via the Internet) come from Templot Real Track...
http://templot.com/companion/real_track.php

Screenshot_2019-06-03-09-29-50-1.png
Last edited by Julian Roberts on Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Wilkins
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:57 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Tony Wilkins » Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:56 pm

allanferguson wrote:
Surely the switch blades are not going to bear the whole weight of the wheel until the switch blade is wider than the wheel tread?

Allan F


Hi Alan.
The wheel tread must always be wider than a rail thickness. The point at which the switch blade will bear all of the weight will obviously vary with the wear of the rails and wheel tread, but generally due to the coning of the wheel tread will take place well before the switch blade reaches full thickness and I would suspect somewhere between half to three quarters of the way along the planing length.
Regards
Tony.

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails/ sideplay effect with undercut blade

Postby Julian Roberts » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:13 pm

Allan I'm glad Tony was able to be more helpful! - I should have said, most of what I know (via the internet as opposed to personal contact) comes also from him especially viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5727

Last drawing shows the sideplay of wheels on the diverging switch rail, given the ideal situation that the wheels are centred in the track, possible given a straight approaching road. From drawing it out it's possible to say

1 A model of the prototype with new flanges and max BB, will have 0.10 sideplay, and will meet the diverging B switch blade at just over 4mm, where the blade thickness maximum is 0.12

2 A P4 max BB and max flange has a sideplay of 0.14, will meet the diverging switch at 5.5mm, max thickness 0.17.

3. A P4 min BB and min flange has a sideplay of 0.23, will meet the diverging blade at 8.5mm, max thickness 0.26.

With the BR horizontal planing the last of these is roughly where the blade meets the gauge height. For the other two the blade top will be below it.

The drawing is on two scales again, 1 square per model mm horizontally, 1 square per model 0.1mm vertically; except the rails themselves are represented vertically in the horizontal scale. ( - so they are a slight exaggeration being actually 0.9mm thick, not 1mm)

Again I know this is ridiculously nerdy, I just like getting things straight in my mind. :? Of course all these very small numbers are just a rough guide when it comes down to it.
20190603_180415.jpg

IMG-20170224-WA0006-1.jpg
The crossover turnouts I made in 2015 are with undercut blades

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby Julian Roberts » Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:19 pm

The thread diverted to undercut blades, the alternative to joggled stockrails. I added the photo of two of my turnouts with undercut blades to the previous post.

Now back to making a turnout with joggled stockrails as per the opening posts. In fact I'm just making the switch end of an existing turnout. I'm using pcb sleepers which to match the ply and rivet of the rest need an extra 0.25mm so am using strip to represent the baseplates. I'm hoping this will have an advantage, where they represent slide chairs, that there is no rivet impeding the blades properly closing against the stockrails. The strip isn't terribly neatly done but this is not a museum piece and will be pretty much unnoticeable at the back of the layout.
20190608_094624.jpg

I made very small notches on the outside or field side of the rails where the 3 bends are so as to be able to more easily adjust yet keeping a straight line along the switch.

I used a ruler to get the straight stockrail straight apart from the area A to C (as per OP diagram). A piece of 0.25mm wire confirmed the gap was as planned at B.
20190608_101257(0).jpg

20190608_101713.jpg
Straight line B to C

The diverging stockrail stockgauge was gauged with a piece of rail. There was room for a feeler gauge this side to be sure I've left space for the blade tip.

20190608_111929.jpg

20190608_112836.jpg


So far so not too difficult but the acid test of whether it will work is yet to come....

davebradwell
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Joggled Stockrails

Postby davebradwell » Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:47 pm

You should get some of Mike Clarke's etched chairs, Julian, if you're going this way. You'll not build a stronger point and all of Bob How's complex stuff on King's Cross is done this way. Mike does point kits for PCB sleepers.

DaveB


Return to “Track and Turnouts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests