Scalefour Forum

Hi Julian,

Templot will print the template with joggles if you tick the box on the switch settings dialog:




cheers,

Martin.

Thanks for the advice Dave and Martin - I will do that if I get into doing more Dave. But my next project is a fiddleyard turnout. I think pcb is a slightly underrated medium. This would have been a lot more faff with ply and rivet. Yes Martin I had forgotten for this print out but had a previous template including joggles to see where they are. I've made these joggles 3mm long so I concentrated on lining up with the set and stockgauge. I've got "into" Templot sufficiently to get to see different turnouts. It's very easy to use so far, with the tutorials very helpful too. I'm not pc savvy and haven't any previous skills, certainly not CAD. Pity it's not compatible with a phone as I'm away from home a lot. The switch I'm doing is an A6 by the way.

I was going to illustrate completing the switch. Another turnout has taken priority. This is a Y turnout for the fiddleyard so function is the sole criteria. There is no attempt to conceal the joggles. Both roads have a slight bend at the set. I realised that the stockgauge needs to be slightly gauge widened so I'll redo that part of the switch I was making a week ago. A wagon runs smoothly through both routes.

The crossing and checkrails were constructed first

I'm disappointed that we've failed to convince you that the joggle is unnecessary, Julian. The work of the devil, in fact. I will, though, agree that pcb trackwork, 60s style is great fun - all my visible fiddle yard is made this way. It's just nice to do something quickly for a change, although it needs packing up to the level of normal track.

If you gap the sleepers just inside the nearest rail, the break is not normally visible. You can make a gapping tool by soldering a short piece (10mm) of junior hacksaw blade into a vertical handle and just running this along inside the rail. It's a huge improvement in appearance.

DaveB

Hi Dave I'm sorry I didn't see your post till now. But in fact I am not a convert to the devil, merely pretending to be! I am just experimenting with his works. But I have to say I did find it much easier making this turnout than my previous three with undercut blades. Most of it was made in one day including two pleasant hours sitting in the garden filing the two switchblades. On assembly the switches worked straight away with no further faffing required. OK the joggles are miles overscale but this is just for a fiddleyard! What made it easy was properly understanding what is meant to happen to the stockrails as per the opening post. However whether making a prototypical joggle and switch - i.e. not overscale - remains the easier and more reliable option than a prototypical undercut switch is the question to which I'll find my answer in due course. The information on undercut blades that people have been so kind to give has taken my understanding forward. In particular I hadn't understood when filing undercut blades previously that the gauge height is below the rail top level.

The gapping is visually unapologetically functional for the same reason, this is for a fiddleyard. Thanks for the tip though which I'll hopefully recall for future reference.

The half turnout new switch will be finished after the holidays.

I think it's easier to make sure the switch mates with the stockrails properly, the whole length of the planing, by putting the actuation (in this case the "dreaded moving sleeper") where the second stretcher bar would be on this A switch. The joggle completely protects the tips but where I made a similar slightly removed actuation point I found on my undercut blades that it can be slightly flexed so that the tip is sure to press against the stockrail. I don't think I bothered with this here though. Obviously the best course is to have the blades actuated as per the prototype and not just in one place but presumably for most of us that's an unnecessary fuss except for longer switches...

davebradwell wrote:....pcb trackwork, 60s style is great fun - all my visible fiddle yard is made this way....

I'm looking forward to having a go at this blobby soldering trackwork in the fullness of time, albeit I'll probably be having a go in 21mm gauge.

Obviously the best course is to have the blades actuated as per the prototype and not just in one place but presumably for most of us that's an unnecessary fuss except for longer switches...

Prototype A switches only had one drive position, same generally for B switches, back drives were/are required only for longer switches, for some reason this does not seem to be well documented in P-Way documents. Perhaps because it falls into a gray area between P-Way and S&T responsibility.
I have found a table in CES049, sheet E.1.1 rev 1 June 2001, relating to Vertical S&C in 113lb FB rail, this gives for each switch type the number of stretchers and the number of drives as follows:
Type, Stretchers, (Drives).
AVT, 2, (1).
AV, 2, (1).
BV, 2, (1).
CV, 2, (2).
DV, 2, (2).
EV, 3, (2).
FV, 3, (2).
SGV, 5, (3).
GV, 5, (3).
HV, 7, (4).

davebradwell wrote:I'm disappointed that we've failed to convince you that the joggle is unnecessary, Julian. The work of the devil, in fact. I will, though, agree that pcb trackwork, 60s style is great fun - all my visible fiddle yard is made this way. It's just nice to do something quickly for a change, although it needs packing up to the level of normal track.

If you gap the sleepers just inside the nearest rail, the break is not normally visible. You can make a gapping tool by soldering a short piece (10mm) of junior hacksaw blade into a vertical handle and just running this along inside the rail. It's a huge improvement in appearance.

DaveB

I hesitate to disagree with someone of Dave's standing but just point out that making lovely undercut switches does take a lot longer than joggling the stock rail, at least when I have tried it.

Perhaps we may agree that our models fall into two categories?
1. Cameo sizes and a bit bigger, less than 10 turnouts, intended for close viewing where joggles may be visible.
2. Larger layouts, many turnouts, viewing generally more distant so joggles not unsightly.

My modelling tends towards the latter class and I have over 100 turnouts under my belt so speed of build is important. I think if I had attempted to do all of those with no joggles and undercut switches I would have lost the mojo.

I'm not looking at the time, despite having quite a bit of trackwork, just following my chosen prototype, that's all.

Most of my blades were milled in batches which is quite quick once set up but I see from this thread that I should have used a 12 deg tapered cutter on a single taper rather than a bit of a shuffle to leave the end at web thickness. This bit was always fettled manually so I suspect the machining will be quicker in future if I cough up £35 for the cutter.

DaveB

Paul Townsend wrote:
Perhaps we may agree that our models fall into two categories?
1. Cameo sizes and a bit bigger, less than 10 turnouts, intended for close viewing where joggles may be visible.
2. Larger layouts, many turnouts, viewing generally more distant so joggles not unsightly.

I think Paul that's exactly the choice we have as P4 modellers unless we belong to a group as I do, and my choice going into a future of retirement from working (which in my case has been playing!).

Most of my blades were milled in batches which is quite quick once set up

Dave I wonder what it might cost to produce commercially accurate and properly finished undercut switch blades for people like Paul. I don't mean for you personally but for a firm like C&L that already produce accurate crossings. I imagine the length of the blade would make almost no difference to the cost of production.

I have my doubts as to whether a truly prototypical accurately tiny joggle and 5 thou thick tip switch is any easier to make to work reliably than a well made undercut blade. But certainly I found three weeks ago an exaggerated joggle made a reliable turnout in a fraction of the time I'd spent on fettling undercut blades by hand.

Keith

Thank you for your post. My understanding that an A switch had two stretcher bars was from this drawing. Whoops...I see a screenshot comes out fuzzy on the post but the drawing is from the Society website.

Julian Roberts wrote: My understanding that an A switch had two stretcher bars was from this drawing.

According to "GWR Switch and Crossing Practice": 'All switches … had at least two stretcher bars connecting the pair of switch rails.' The GW didn't use REA 'A' switches, but their equivalent had two stretcher bars.

In the table I gave the first figure is the number of stretcher bars, in the case of the A switch that is 2.
The second figure, in brackets, is the number of those that are driven, in the case of the A switch (1).
Sorry if it was not clear.
On your drawing the stretcher nearer to the tips would have the drive rod connected.
Note that rod operated facing points would have an additional 'lock stretcher' right at the tips passing through the fpl casting.
Rgds

Somewhat delayed by a busy summer the half point (switch and closure rails section of A6 turnout) for Calderside is now ready for installation.
I regauged the diverging stockrail to be +0.1 at sleeper 2, and +0.2 at the stockgauge.

From there on to the rail joint between sleepers 13 and 14 it is carefully gauged (maintaining +0.2) from the diverging switchblade which naturally springs against the 'straight' stockrail. From where the diverging blade is fixed and the next section of diverging stockrail commences the triangular gauge is used.

I think a good way of moving the blades, if 2 stretcher bars are a step too complicated, is to make sleeper 4 moveable and fixed to the blades only, preferably via rotating pins. Then the blades can be held vertically in their correct position as well as their correct distance apart and the throw correct. Then the operating force will act along the whole planing length ensuring the blade is pushed securely against the stockrail as strongly at the stockgauge as at the tips. Then there is no possibility of gauge narrowing. However this being a club layout there can be no guarantee that such a moving sleeper will escape being glued down with the ballast by mistake at some point in the future. So the standard operating rods from below will act between sleepers 4&5 rather than the conventional 3&4, and I hope arranged to hold the blades down on the "slide chairs" (bits of strip)

I think I'll experiment with seeing if I can reduce the amount of joggle if I make another similar style turnout next time

Out of interest (I hope) here's a couple of examples from the Suvvern.

And ...

Sorry, trying again ...

Julian Roberts wrote:
Specifically, I was unclear that (1) the diverging stockrail does have both a joggle and a "set". There is a confusion that the joggle is only on the straight stockrail and the diverging one has just a set.

I've finally been to a railway (Spa Valley Rly at Tunbridge Wells) where I could photograph a turnout with joggles, to my mind showing clearly there is a joggle on the diverging stockrail as well as on the other stockrail.







I encounter scepticism that this is correct so I'm posting this to check if it is, or not?

Julian Roberts wrote:I encounter scepticism that this is correct so I'm posting this to check if it is, or not?

Hi Julian,

If what is correct, or not? You do often post questions which are difficult to decipher.

You had your diagram exactly correct in your very first post in this topic. Here it is again:



It's a bit of a mystery why you are still asking questions, after yourself posting the correct answer over two years ago?

cheers,

Martin.

Thanks for confirming, Martin. I apologise for deflecting you from your ground breaking Templot developments.

While this thread is once again active there is one small issue where I have for some time meant to seek clarification. I hope this time my question isn't difficult to decipher!

Tony Wilkins wrote:
To put the rail top planing into perspective, for an undercut switch the rail height is reduced by a 32nd under 3/4" in the full size, which is 0.24mm at our scale and the taper runs out over the same distance as the side planing of the switch rail. For straight cut switches the figure is 1/2"

Tony.

On straight cut switches also, does the top planing taper run out over the same distance as the side planing?

Julian Roberts wrote:On straight cut switches also, does the top planing taper run out over the same distance as the side planing?

Hi Julian,

This is a GWR-pattern straight-cut (joggled) switch (click to see it larger):


The top planing runs out near the yellow mark, about 30" from the tip. Also the tip has a radiused end.

Here's another view:


Notice how imperceptible is the joggle. It's next to impossible to model it in 4mm scale.

Conversely, notice how prominent is the sole plate, which is seldom modelled. I'm intending to include it in Plug Track.

cheers,

Martin.

Many thanks Martin. Really sorry to make yet another question - the very last one, on this thread at least - is that 30" a constant, whatever the length of the planing?

By the way I've never thanked William Barter for the drawings from the Suvvern, so I am now. I think the top planing is evident there but the numbers on the drawing are fuzzy, at least as I see it, so I can't be sure of the lengths shown.

Yes I entirely see that proper joggles can't be seen! I would think that to model them correctly so successfully that trains don't derail would be more challenging than the undercut style which, after following your instructions on Templot and Tony's on this Forum, is my norm. But getting the top planing correct might increase the chance of successful running were anyone to attempt it.