Using the easy-assembly Finetrax pointwork kits in 00 and EM (and in P4 from the S4 Society)

[Lacathedrale]

The trio in N done:

[Captain Kernow]

On 02/08/2024 at 19:04, Gilbert said:

I bought a kit some time ago and took it with me to Missenden this week. I saved the build until this morning as I had tidied up most of my airbrushing gear and other kit for a lunchtime departure. I had the recommended tools, the instructions, downloaded templates, a  flat surface and a copy of the article by Tim Shackleton from HMag.

What a delight. FWIW I tried a Rapido wagon that had an issue with Peco Medium BH turnouts and it sailed through...

I was finished within the hour and it was  much admired by course members and fellow-tutors alike...

I should add I have never built any track in my life so I am a relative novice in such matters...

Chris H

Well done, Chris. As you have experienced, the water's lovely!

 

[Gilbert]

17 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Well done, Chris. As you have experienced, the water's lovely!

 

It was much enjoyed....I think the secret is to "r**d th* ins*******ns.....I know....sorry...

Chris

[Gilbert]

On 03/12/2020 at 08:47, NFWEM57 said:

I then attached the almost complete prototype to some PECO Bullhead, images of the finished product below. 

I've just attached my new A5 to some Peco Bullhead and there is a minor but noticeable height difference at the rail head. Before I start a trawl of the 84 pages or start measuring all my bits..can anyone with better experience than me confirm if this is due to a minor difference in rail height or does it result from sleeper differences? and what have people done about it? and a supplementary question - are any proprietary 00 flexitracks more compatible?

I'll get me coat.....

Thanks

Chris H

[BWsTrains]

4 hours ago, Gilbert said:

I've just attached my new A5 to some Peco Bullhead and there is a minor but noticeable height difference at the rail head.

 

If there is it's below my detection threshold. I just ever so lightly hand propelled a Rapido wagon over one such join and could not sense any discontinuity whatsoever by feel or sight. British Finescale + PECO bullhead has given me the finest running experience I could wish for in my modelling.

 

If somehow it doesn't quite match fully hand built then it's a trade off I'll gladly accept.

 

Colin

[Gilbert]

I've started wading through the thread and this early video does (to me at least) show the same height issue at the rail joints. Please don't take this as criticism of these turnouts - I am highly pleased with my first kit but I can feel a slight difference when testing on my work bench and want to find the best way of resolving it. I plan to do a bit of measuring later. To be clear I don't know what plain track is used in the video.

 

 

[Donw]

I would recommend thin card packing at the joint.  

 

Don

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

 I can't find it on the website, but didn't there used to be an 'adaptor' sleeper strip going from thick to thin to address this sort of issue, or am I hallucinating again, could be the breakfast mushrooms!

 

Mike.

[Gilbert]

19 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

 I can't find it on the website, but didn't there used to be an 'adaptor' sleeper strip going from thick to thin to address this sort of issue, or am I hallucinating again, could be the breakfast mushrooms!

 

Mike.

My initial reading of the thread (I'm up to page 31) is that such a strip was discussed but was designed for connection to thin sleepered products such as SMP. The discrepancy here is very minor indeed but to me noticeable..

Chris

[Gilbert]

To answer my own question I have measured the Fx turnouts as 4.10mm/0.161" high and Peco plain track as 3.88mm/0.152".

A scrap of 10 thou styrene under the Peco track has solved the problem at least on the bench.

Chris

Edited August 7 by Gilbert

[Captain Kernow]

Chris - only just seen your query.

 

The rail height should be the same between Peco flexible bullhead track and the rail used in the point kits - it's all Code 75 bullhead. The same as used by Exactoscale, SMP, C&L etc.

 

You are right in that the height differential is due to slight variations in sleeper depth between manufacturers. This is not a major problem and as Don has said, can be easily solved by card packing. I've done this (with card packing) many, many times over the years, including where copper clad track joins plastic sleepered track etc.

 

[n9]

I have a different question.

 

I struggle to call this a defect because in every other regard I've so far been blown away by how good British Finescale turnouts are, but in the gaps between the timbers and some corners I'm having to clear out quite a bit (relatively) of overrun or "splurge" of material.

 

To show what I mean, here's a pic where, with a fine scalpel, I've already started clearing out most of it excepting the circled areas from a 1 in 6 Double Slip in N:

 

 

I found the same thing in my A5, which is the very first BF turnout I built, and I can also see a little of the same in my yet-to-be built B6.

 

 

I realise once it's ballasted and weathered most of this won't be visible, but is this "overrun" normal for the manufacturing process? Maybe on account of the smallness of N?

 

It puzzles me because the moulding of the chairs, and everywhere else, is absolutely perfect with perfect tolerances, yet right at the base of the webbing, it isn't as perfect.

 

I'm also curious as to what causes that splotchy sheen.

 

I want to stress that this is curiosity on my part and that overall I'm very happy with these turnouts - I will be using them regardless.

[Lacathedrale]

I've come across a rather odd problem - my Farish 08 seems to hate going through the Finetrax pointwork. Dapol 73's and 33's run through OK. It seems like it's getting caught on something, but I'm baffled if I can figure out what:

 

 

I can't seem to pinpoint it perfectly but I think it has to do with the B2B - only 7.3-7.35mm on this model versus the distances across the wing and check rails of 7.3mm on the finetrax points. Before I start throwing my toys out of the pram, is there anyone who can shed any potential insight? There's nothing hanging below the chassis (other than the gear casing which I think is low-profile enough to not catch), with/without couplers doesn't matter. There's nothing sticking up on the layout for this to catch on, either...

[n9]

2 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I've come across a rather odd problem - my Farish 08 seems to hate going through the Finetrax pointwork. Dapol 73's and 33's run through OK. It seems like it's getting caught on something, but I'm baffled if I can figure out what:

 

 

I can't seem to pinpoint it perfectly but I think it has to do with the B2B - only 7.3-7.35mm on this model versus the distances across the wing and check rails of 7.3mm on the finetrax points. Before I start throwing my toys out of the pram, is there anyone who can shed any potential insight? There's nothing hanging below the chassis (other than the gear casing which I think is low-profile enough to not catch), with/without couplers doesn't matter. There's nothing sticking up on the layout for this to catch on, either...

 

I think the b2b needs to be 7.4mm. My class 40 snagged a bit at the vee, but nowhere near as much as in your videos, and it improved when I increased the b2b from 7.3mm-ish mm to 7.4mm-ish.

 

Failing better advice, which is almost certainly coming, I'd try to get just the wheel assembly moving across the turnout to make it easier to spot exactly where it's catching. That's unless you can angle the board or use mirrors/torch/magnifying glass to get a better view of what the wheels are doing. Also, do the wheels rotate smoothly on the axles or is there some wobble?

[Wayne Kinney]

45 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I've come across a rather odd problem - my Farish 08 seems to hate going through the Finetrax pointwork. Dapol 73's and 33's run through OK. It seems like it's getting caught on something, but I'm baffled if I can figure out what:

 

 

I can't seem to pinpoint it perfectly but I think it has to do with the B2B - only 7.3-7.35mm on this model versus the distances across the wing and check rails of 7.3mm on the finetrax points. Before I start throwing my toys out of the pram, is there anyone who can shed any potential insight? There's nothing hanging below the chassis (other than the gear casing which I think is low-profile enough to not catch), with/without couplers doesn't matter. There's nothing sticking up on the layout for this to catch on, either...

Hi William,

 

I'm sure its a back to backs and wheel wobble issue. Did you measure the B2B's of the  Dapol 73's and 33's (I'm guessing 7.5mm+)

[SHMD]

Bo-Bo locos are notorious for good running - where as short coupled locos are much less forgiving.

 

Yes B2Bs plus make sure all sections of individual rails are separately connected to the bus.

( Looks like something is "hitting" in your video though.)

 

A trailing load (through reverse curves) can also "pull" the loco sideways causing misalignments/hitting running through a point.

 

 

Kev.

 

[n9]

Just a couple more thoughts as the replies are flying in:

 

I don't own an 08, but I'd also check if its wheel flanges are wider than on your other locos, or if their profile is different. Or in tech-speak, are they fatter?

 

Assuming the b2b of 7.3mm is too narrow, which seems to have been confirmed, you can also guess that wheels might be contacting (getting squeezed by) check rails or wing rails, so maybe check the flare on those. That said, if your other locos are running fine, I think it's much more advisable to fix the loco than to start thinking about tweaking turnouts which, let's face it, are a work of art.

[tom s]

On my 08 the b2b is 7.44mm on all wheels, using the wheel width (2.2) and overall wheelset width (11.84), as i found recently my callipers had a 0.1mm difference between the internal and external jaws. I don't know if this problem is common with callipers.

[Lacathedrale]

My Dapol locos have a B2B of 7.38ish and some Farish bogies I've got measure close to 7.3mm too. I'll measure again with over-face measurements to be sure.

 

Looking very closely it seems to happen at a point where the front wheel is touching the crossing nose, but that might just be correlation rather than causation. I'll double check the flange thickness but the Dapol models are some of their earliest models and the Farish is brand new.

 

It's definitely something physically sticking or dragging, rather than an electrical issue.

[Enterprisingwestern]

10 hours ago, tom s said:

On my 08 the b2b is 7.44mm on all wheels, using the wheel width (2.2) and overall wheelset width (11.84), as i found recently my callipers had a 0.1mm difference between the internal and external jaws. I don't know if this problem is common with callipers.

 

Just a guess, but I would imagine your calipers aren't a few hundred quids worth of Mitutoyo?

I think the cheaper ones are 'adequate' for our needs, but not all that accurate in true engineering terms, I have 3 pairs scattered about the place, not super cheapies, but £25 plus ones, and all 3 measure the same item with 3 different results, only matters of a few thou, but they are what they are, I wouldn't worry too much about 0.1mm tbh.

 

Mike.

[tom s]

3 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Just a guess, but I would imagine your calipers aren't a few hundred quids worth of Mitutoyo?

I think the cheaper ones are 'adequate' for our needs, but not all that accurate in true engineering terms, I have 3 pairs scattered about the place, not super cheapies, but £25 plus ones, and all 3 measure the same item with 3 different results, only matters of a few thou, but they are what they are, I wouldn't worry too much about 0.1mm tbh.

 

Mike.

You're correct, this was in the £25 range. Depends where the 0.1 is, it did cause some concern when my printed trackwork gauge was consistently too narrow, and issues trying to get prints to fit together. Interference fits and 0.3 mod gear indexing e.g.
Cheers, Tom.

[n9]

Whats the right switch blade length for my Code 40 (N) 1in6 double slip?

 

I'm currently building it, and maybe it's my eyes or the resolution of the PDF isn't high enough, but the template seems to show tips extending beyond the last slide chair and maybe even approaching the edge of the timber with the next chair? (The thickness of the lines coming to a point seem to go beyond.)

 

However, the instructions on page 6 say the tips should line up over the last slide chair, which I think makes sense.

 

I guess the instructions are right and it's my eyes playing tricks with the template?

 

Can someone confirm? Thanks

[Siberian Snooper]

The prototype switch blades finish at the slide chair. As per the instructions.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8 by Siberian Snooper

[BWsTrains]

On 07/08/2024 at 19:29, Gilbert said:

To answer my own question I have measured the Fx turnouts as 4.10mm/0.161" high and Peco plain track as 3.88mm/0.152".

A scrap of 10 thou styrene under the Peco track has solved the problem at least on the bench.

Chris

 

Now that I'm getting seriously into fixing down my track I can confirm that a strip of 0.25mm card under the exit track roads resolves the height mismatch which Gilbert notes.

 

As my exit joins in planning mode are mostly joined with SL-114s and then held down only firmly on the turnout side of the join I wasn't seeing any discontinuity previously, the joiner being able to support the slightly elevated rails on the other side. All now in hand with strips inserted as I move along the various lines.

 

Those familiar with my Upper Hembury layout will appreciate that many of my British Finescale turnouts lead on from one to another in a cascade or crossover so my task is modest. The alert was most timely for me as there is no "Undo" button for this task!

 

 

Edited August 13 by BWsTrains
add'n

[n9]

FWIW, a couple of nuggets on my on-going double slip build in N. Be aware that this is only my second Finetrax turnout build, so more than happy to be shown where I'm making a complete mess of things.

 

It's looking like this right now:

 

 

I'm aware that the switch blades are probably 0.5mm or so too long, closure rail insulating gap on one side is slightly wider than the other, and that I forgot to scale-down the stated "2-3mm" pin length on the tie-bars which likely means a recipe for disaster if I solder them like that because the pins extend part way over chairs.

 

 

 

Overall, I'm finding the double slips a few orders of magnitude harder to assemble than the A5 I did. They're a lot less forgiving, particularly the closure rails - the chairs leading up to the V absolutely have not liked my propensity to do a rail check-fit before marking, removing, filing down the last few fractions of a mm, and refitting. I had no problems at all doing that with the A5 as many times as I needed to. The reason I think is: it's small, but the chair arrangement at the V applies enough lateral force to closure rail ends that no matter how careful I was I couldn't avoid damage to those chairs on subsequent fits. They all survived my first fitting, but not a second one, so my take-away here is to get the closure rails precisely sized the first time around, because they're really "fit once."

 

Not sure if design-wise that could be improved?

 

 

Also not sure why there's only one hole in the tie-bars for a point motor. Two would mean more leeway for motor positioning later, as well as having to think less about where I want point motors as I'm laying track.

 

Overall, still happy with these turnouts though.

 

Anyway, any feedback on my likely cack handed efforts very gratefully received!