EMGS Crossing Jigs

[James LodgeParticipant]

Hi EMGS!

So I am relatively new to building my own trackwork and looking at every possible angle to see how i want to go about it. I am going to purchase the 1:5,1:6,1:7 & 1:8 Crossing Jig soon and understand the concept fine. But, I want to ask about another product:

Brass Fret for Constructing Common Crossing Jig – https://emgs.org/product/brass-fret-for-constructing-common-crossing-jig/

What is it? How does one use it? and is there a detailed thread/publication with reference photos that weren’t deleted into oblivion (like a lot of older RMWeb stuff). I will be adding one to my order but want to understand it anyway.

Thanks

[Trade OfficerKeymaster]

Hi James

Instructions for the common crossing jig are in the manual sheets section of the members area

If you look under Section 1 trackwork it is 1_2_1_4 Track construction Part1 : Building a common crossing assy jig

It is basically to help with aligning the check rails and continuation rails with the V

Under the same section are instructions for the Crossing jig

 

John

[James LodgeParticipant]

Thanks John,

Found and printed ahead of time.
I note this jig seems to be required to be used in conjunction with EMGS 0.6mm PCD Boards? I plan on using EMGS timbers throughout my turnout so will experiment with the chairs I have and see how it goes.

Thanks,

James

[NorwesternerParticipant]

Hi James,  Just in case you may be getting confused here, the 0.6mm pcb suggested in the instructions is used to raise the rail height above the sleepers to the same level as plastic chairs.  You could of course also equally use brass or NS strip.  It does also hold the crossing rails in place, so you can jig build the crossing off the layout first – again, much like the prototype.  Once you’ve built the crossing, it is then laid onto your choice of sleepers – I use ply and superglue it – and you then add cosmetic chairs after.  Hope that helps if you were confused!  Cheers, Paul

[Bob AllisonParticipant]

John – do you mean “wing rails” rather than “check rails”?

James – some people manage to align all the rails in the crossing by eye, but I’m not one of them, in spite of having built a hundred or so points from scratch.  A guide such as this one is very helpful.

Regards,

Bob

[James LodgeParticipant]

Bob, I have a few gauges and some feeler gauges to assist in building. Alas this will contribute to no.7 turnout created onwards so, I am a complete novice at this! 😀

Thanks,
James

[NorwesternerParticipant]

Hi James,

I’ve used the brass fret jig to make a fair number of crossings, and it certainly helps a lot.  Even with the jig however, you will often need to make slight tweaks to the crossings to get everything exactly aligned.  It all sounds difficult, but it’s not – you just need a little patience!

You may want to also consider buying the Switchblade Planing Jig too.  It all gets a bit expensive I know, but worth it if you’re planning to build a fair number of points.  Still much cheaper than buying lots of ready made items!

When building trackwork, I always try and follow the prototype construction, and the bible for me is the book “British Railway Track” by The Permanent Way Institution.  My copy is the 1943 edition, though there are later revisions.  Hard to find, but your local library might help.

Cheers, Paul

[James LodgeParticipant]

Hi Paul,

Thank you very much for your advice! I did contemplate the Switchblade jog also but, GWR being GWR, the planing lengths are slightly off for some turnouts. I followed a great guide in an issue of ScaleFour mag from a few years back, along with some measurements taken from Templot and “GWR Switch and Crossing Practice” to make my own, and thus far, seems to do the job quite well. I also have a copy of Finescale Trackwork by Iain Rice which has been a great read and help so far!

Thanks again,
James

[Paul TomlinsonParticipant]

James, you might be interested in this little booklet available from the 2mm scale association (reviewed in Newsletter 219). Lots of photos and diagrams.

 

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_1768-scaled.jpeg
   

2. 

   IMG_1769-scaled.jpeg
   

[James LodgeParticipant]

Thank you for the suggestion, as it happens, I have a wills kit for point rodding I am contemplating installing on my small yard layout. It may come in handy!

[Bob AllisonParticipant]

I bought a secondhand copy of British Railways Track for £50 a few years back and for a while it was the best reference I had.  Then I discovered “LMS Drawings of Standard Railway Equipment – Permanent Way” which is freely available at

https://www.lmssociety.org.uk/downloads.php

and the equivalent LNER version which can be purchased from the North Eastern Railway Society. Either of these is much, much more useful for modellers of bullhead track than BRT and massively cheaper.  To be honest, the majority of BRT is not really relevant to us modellers, being concerned with maintenance procedures and formulae/tables for setting out curves and junctions.

None of this will be much use to James who is modelling GWR track, but may save modellers of other persuasions unneccessary expenditure.

Bob

[Nick RidgwayParticipant]

There is a book on GWR track covering stuff back to the nineteenth century. I’ll dig it out, and post the title here.

[Nick RidgwayParticipant]

“GWR Switch and Crossing Practice”, by David J Smith, published by the Great Western Study Group, December 2000.

[James LodgeParticipant]

This is the first publication I actually purchased before even contemplating building my own trackwork, followed by “An Historical Survey of Selected Great Western Stations – Volume Two” for track diagrams on the South Brent – Kingsbridge line. Great tool, if only it could tell me sizing of all the turnouts! 😀

[Nick RidgwayParticipant]

I have used this book to calculate the geometry of GWR junctions in EM gauge and my write-up has been awaiting publication in the EMGS Manual for a couple of years now. The delay is explained in that it has come out as an odd number of pages, and the current thinking is that an even number of pages is appropriate for the purposes of sharing the maximum amount of information for the minimum weight of posted paper.

So the book can be used.

For the moment it will mean revisiting the calculations from first principles using the contents, pending publication of the Manual sheets.

Something that might be useful is second-person-check, a peer review as it were, on them beforehand. Might I invite you to contact the Manual Sheet Editor for a copy of my draft so that it can be red-penned and returned before its publication forces a review and an update?

Incidentally, I have used the contents of the book to review the dimensions of some of the junctions at Hayes Knoll on the Swindon & Cricklade Railway in 12in scale. There is good correspondence between the contents of the book and what has been installed – as of 2012, that is.

WRT South Brent, the junctions selected will depend upon modellers’ licence on compressing the layout to save space – always a consideration when building a model. Generally, a crossover between track at double track centres needs to be no wider than 1 in 8 otherwise buffers will start to lock and corridor connections start to tear off. The minimum radius of locomotives is a function of chassis design; I generally take 5&2/3 chains, the radius of an LNER B & 6&1/2, as the minimum practical radius for steam locomotives in 12in scale. And go from there.

It is possible to determine the geometry of prototype junctions using photos and counting the chairs. In the LNER series, for example, one can determine the switch pattern by counting the number of P chairs each side: 5 for an A switch, 6 for a B, 7 for a C and so on. Each switch had only a limited number of crossing angles with which it is compatible and this information is tabulated in the Manual sheets published to date.

I’ve done my best to simplify the information into the sheets so far. There is more work to do as more 12in scale information comes to light. Which will keep me busy, I suppose.

• This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Nick Ridgway.
• This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Nick Ridgway.

[James LodgeParticipant]

Thanks Nick for your insight!

When it comes to Brent itself, there are notes on some of the turnouts being stated as 10ft old type (yard turnots) but my predicament is mainline. I am taking personal licencing and saying this is the case for most turnouts along the line.

When I get to Kingsbridge or Brent, that will need more research! Brent itself to 4mm scale could be around 6m long end to end (accounting for the inclusion of Up loop all the way through to down loop.
Kingsbridge being around 4m (If I plan to get to them that is…)

For now, my small make believe Brickworks near Dipford will do!

[Stephen FreemanParticipant]

As you will know there are several photos in David Smiths Book, featuring Brent, as to what the relevant switch and crossings were used depends to a large degree on the period being modelled and the location on the line. Anything on the branch and yard is likely to be of pre- Grouping design, whilst the mainline was probably renewed to the newer standards, especially as some the track outside the station is known to have been added during the second World war.

Brent itself has had several models built of it though not of absolute accuracy (if that was ever possible) as has Kingsbridge.

[Bob AllisonParticipant]

It’s a bit disappointing that useful articles are delayed because they don’t fill up the correct number of sheets!

I wonder, Nick, if your article would be suitable as a Technical Paper. As far as I can tell, the only difference between those and manual sheets is that the latter are circulated as printed sheets whereas the former are only available on line.

Bob

[Nick RidgwayParticipant]

No idea how to do that.

Anyway, the write-up left my desk over 2 years ago.

[John SimpsonParticipant]

Actually chaps there may almost be a misunderstanding here so just clarify:

The information is available on line and it has been available online since Nick very kindly wrote the Manual Sheet. It has not been published in paper format because it is a single sided Manual Sheet add-on page. Nick did advise at the time of the discussion that he was  – when he had time – going to produce a similar table for (IIRC) M&GNR switches. His paper was one of a number of reasons I introduced the new Category – “Approved awaiting printing” – specifically to get information out to people instead of having to wait on follow-on sheets before going out to print. Tough on those unwilling to use the website but better it is out and visible to 75% than it sit around in the pending tray.

If it was a Technical Paper – it would still be available on line but under the Technical Papers category. As the previous 8 or 10 tables Nick produced are in Manual Sheets then logically  I would still look to publishing it  as additional pages to the existing Manual Sheet(1.2.0.5), when the next table is produced.

Two possibly unspoken (unanswered?) questions in all this

– You wonder why wait? – One of the major constraints we have is that printing, packaging and posting costs a bomb – we get no reduction if we only print one side; we are charged per sheet i.e. it costs the same for 2 sides as one, and generally we only have capacity for 2 sheets for Manual Sheets (I emphasise sheets not sides) per newsletter. I therefore give give priority to double-sided Manual Sheets to get full value; but rest assured, when Nick (sorry to pressure you Nick !!) produces the next table – it will probably top of the list to go out in paper format.

2nd unspoken question – why not wrap it into the Manual Sheet now – answer human frailty  – simply to ensure it does not get forgotten by me, or the Newsletter Editor who arranges the printing,  and of course to keep the unspoken pressure on Nick 🙂 !!

Hope that helps…….

Regards John Simpson

 

[Bob AllisonParticipant]

Thanks for the clarication John, very useful and logical.

Two more unspoken questions:

1. What are the criteria that distinguish technical papers from manual sheets, and whose decision is final?  The technical papers I have seen on the web seem to have the same clout as most of the manual pages.  I do like that they are all listed in one place on our website, although it makes the distinction between them seem even stranger.

2.  If distributing paper manual sheets is so costly, has the board considered going paperless and posting new sheets on the web alone?  If that’s a step too far, perhaps allow members to opt out of receiving paper copies?

Regards,

Bob

[Nick RidgwayParticipant]

So many organisations these days are asking for paperless activity ostensibly to keep costs down. What they don’t do is address the sales technique of “what’s in it for me”? What’s the deal? If a lower rate of subs was available to go paperless then it might be attractive. Personally, I don’t buy the proposition. I want manual sheets in front of me when I model and several A4 pages beats a 4” x 2.5” screen that needs plugging in any day of the week.

Then, I’m funny that way, I suppose…

Bit of an off-topic rant, there. Sorry about that.

 

• This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Nick Ridgway.
• This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Nick Ridgway.
• This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Nick Ridgway.

[John SimpsonParticipant]

Hi Bob, Nick,

Think we might be straying here (a forum curse …)

I did put a short para in the Newsletter some time ago about Technical Papers and Steve has suggested I rerun a slightly longer item it because it merits the space and in summary situation is evolving even now …..

…..But currently if a document is long or complex, or very narrow or theoretical in scope,  or I have been unable for one reason or another to convert it to a Manual Sheet e.g. I receive a hand typed photocopy or it had too many queries (it happens) but it is complete in itself and I feel it is of value then it becomes a Technical Paper. If it is how I built an 0-X-0 tank part 1 of 20 then it stays/goes to Steve for consideration as a Newsletter article. It might be a fine decision – especially if instead of it being part 1 of an o-x-x CLC tank it was “Guidelines for building and balancing 0-4-4T chassis” (I could do with one of those right now !!) . The general guideline is both TPs and MSs need to be stand-alone complete. Normally the decision is agreed between me, and the author, with Steve providing a balancing view.

N.B. The main difference between an MS and a TP is that as a TP it will not get the same level of scrutiny that a Manual Sheet gets, e.g in terms of me possibly taking a model apart to see if the words make detailed sense in a real context or giving the author a grilling on how they actually did something, or asking qns about supplier sources or parts lists. I will review a TP for literacy logic, and general understanding. The Manual Sheet is effectively a “Gold Standard”. Any member should be able to pick an MS up and confidently do the job. The Technical Paper may not be to the same level of detail or clarity or it may even be massively more detailed (we have one currently with over 50 photos in the process!!) and so I also I tend to leave a TP in the supplier format thus emphasising the difference.
There is nothing to stop a Technical Paper transitioning into the Manual Sheets section as a formal Manual Sheet at some stage but nowadays a 16 or even 8 page Manual Sheet is most unlikely to ever be printed but may well still be of interest to the Membership so I feel it should be distributed

By making it a Technical Paper I can make them available on the website and announce them in the News when they are loaded to emphasise that we are going down the electronic path and encourage people to use the website particularly reluctant users. In the long run I could see videos for example also being put up there but that is for the future. You will note even MSs go up electronically well in front of paper distribution – this is deliberate – we want people to see there is benefit in using the website. We should not let the 25% slow the distribution of knowledge.

A numbering scheme for TPs is under review – currently it is a bran tub. That is not the solution – I want something more user friendly than a  search that lists 1200 items leaving the user to wade thro a sea of dross to get the info he needs.

As regards going down the “paper will cost you extra” route – hmmm – we need the 25% non-IT participant subscriptions  – so they in turn need to feel they are getting something –  what’s in it for the generally loyal 25% who do not access the website – I don’t think anyone has a happy customer base by charging long term customers more for something they have come to expect and can we as a Society afford to alienate them?

In addition I believe we may be legally required as a Ltd company to supply certain paper documents as inserts on demand. – I believe print surcharges have been raised before but the savings are not commensurate with the effort and cost saving however this is all outside my competence/pay (what pay !?) grade, and I must confess that like Nick when I am doing something I like the A4 paper in front of me – my work-bench is not an IT friendly environment – sawdust, metal filings, solder, solder fluid coffee even a tuna mayo sandwich – you name it but paper just mops it up !!

Hope that helps

[Author]

Posts