072 - Shelfington - Point Predicament - Part Two
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- Welcome to Ian's N Gauge channel!
In my previous video I showed how I'd replaced the Peco setrack points on my test track with medium streamline points.
In this video I’m going to investigate if this has solved the derailment issues I was having with the setrack points in certain situations.
Thanks very much for watching.
Ian
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Very interesting experiment, raising an issue that I need to bear in mind for my fiddle yard later in my build. Cheers Ian!
Regards
Steve
Hi Steve! Thanks! Yes, this arrangement of points is exactly what you'd expect to find in a fiddle yard, so it's well worth testing out your own stock on them! All the best, Ian.
Well done Ian the conclusion of the test was put over very well and obviously as we’ve seen the change to the longer radius has worked nicely. I look forward to version 40 of the plan.
As for the setback points there is nothing wrong with them, some people get quite fussy about them as they do with code 80, I know! But when you have ballast and scenery down I don’t think you would notice that much anyway!
It’s a funny old game, cheers for now, John
Thanks very much John! I have to admit to being completely surprised and shocked by how much better the medium radius streamline points performed! There wasn't even a hint of a derailment at any point, and as you can imagine, I performed the tests many more times than were in the video! I was actually willing them to fail at one point, just to make the video more interesting!!! Lol! I think you're right, people get hung up on rail code, but none of it is completely accurate, so what's the point of stressing over a fraction of a millimeter here or there? Like you say, when you ballast the track, most people won't notice the difference! I'm now working on version 41 of the plan - version 40 made me completely rejig the whole layout, although it looks quite similar! Indeed, it is a funny old game mate! All the best, Ian.
Hi Ian, so glad the medium radius points worked well. Short radius points can be good, as you’ve said. Some stock would not cope though, nor would any Co-Co loco (47, 50, 57, 66) although 37 I found was very sure footed. The train that made me switch away from them was the N gauge pendolino, they derailed on the slightly curve let alone points and inclines. Oh I nearly went off on a tangent, lol. Anyway so pleased you have found some suitable points. Take care.
Thanks very much John! I've just pre-ordered the new Dapol class 56, so it probably would have failed to navigate setrack points too! A class 37, 47 and 50 are also on my list, as well as a 55! I must admit that I was completely surprised at how much better all of my stock ran over the medium radius points, especially at speed! I'm now in the process of replacing ALL of my setrack points on the track plan! All the best, Ian.
Hello Ian, well that's a relief, successful trial! 👍
Hi John! Yes, this was definitely one of my more successful experiments! All the best, Ian.
Hi ian glad you sorted your points out you right about using set track points on layout as i have had no trouble with my one's thanks for sharing 👍
Hi Clive! Thank you! Yeah, like I say, I really like the setrack system, and I was only having problems with the points in certain situations, that many others wouldn't run up against! Don't see the point in rubbishing them, especially when they've worked perfectly well for me in other situations! For me though, as I really wanted the ability to reverse trains into sidings in my marshalling yard, the streamline points are definitely the way to go! All the best, Ian.
Hi Ian, I'm relieved that everything now works :) Whilst there are some things that will work with the very tight settrack points, I think ultimately "physics won"! Just like on the full-size railway ;)
Hi Jonathan! I've pretty relieved myself, as I wasn't quite sure what to try next if this hadn't worked! I'm still really shocked at how much better the streamline points were compared to the setrack ones! Pretty amazing really! Yep, you can't fight physics! Lol! All the best, Ian.
Evening Ian - you are definitely a set track point afficenado 😅. The Streamline pointwork is definitely the way to go. Now all I need to do is to convince you that you do have room on the track plan you showed to have at least 2 long radius points without really compromising the length of your sidings. 😅 cheers Euan
Good evening Euan! Yes, I definitely love my setrack! You're right though, just watching those wagons whiz through the S-curves of the streamline points finally convinced me that they were the way to go in most places! Still not sure about the long radius points though! Will have another play with the track plan before finally deciding! You know it'll probably be another year or two before I actually have to lay them, so I've got plenty of time! Lol! All the best, Ian.
Great video. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Gil! You're welcome! Cheers, Ian.
I would have been very surprised if the streamline points had caused you problems but it is really good to see that problems propelling stock seem to be over. To be abel to move at speed propelling was a real test, whether intended or not, and everything ran very well. I am sure you will have fun reworking the track plan. I suspect you will be able to salvage quite a bit of your plan looking at it. You may find that you need shorter pieces of flexi track on the straight sections where you have some of the crossovers. You will also future proof when you get larger diesel stock. Some of the wheel configurations on bigger locos get very sniffy indeed about short set track points whether going forward or backward over them. The diesel guys on forums can be quite unpleasant and boisterous when anyone mentions set track points. Look forward to seeing the next iteration of the plan. Stephen
Hi Stephen! Yes, I was sure that the streamline points would be better, but was really amazed at how much better they were! The fact that the wagons that had been so problematic with the setrack points were able to whiz over them at top speed was a real shock, and actually a bit of a lightbulb moment for me! Actually, all of the points other than in my yard areas were already medium streamline points, but I'm considering changing them to large radius instead! I definitely think setrack has its place though, and will defend anyone's choice to use it! I can't imagine any beginner jumping straight into using flexible track, and one thing this hobby needs is new, young blood, who won't be put off at the initial stage of a build! Anyway, I'm currently working on v40 of the track plan, and will more than likely have a video about it in the next few weeks! All the best, Ian.
Hi Ian An interseting one again, it has caused me to look at my feeble efforts at sidings and I'm thinking now I might have to follow your example or at least change the entry/exit angles a little, more thinking time...lol. Thanks
Hi Peter! Thank you! Sorry for making you rethink! Lol! Procrastination is the name of the game in this hobby - well, it is for me! :) Cheers, Ian.
Greetings Shelfington and hello Ian 👋 The suspense is over 🫣 and everyone lived happily ever after 🥰 I do miss the screws though 😥 Fantastic to see that the Class 33 is top performing loco 😇 I love them little guys 😍 Very best wishes from the Emerald Isle ☘️
Good evening to Wickford and hello Paul! Haha! Yes, all's well that ends well! I think I'm still going to add some weight to the wagons, although the screws will be replaced by some self-adhesive motorcycle wheel weights I've procured! Yeah, the Dapol 33 is an amazing machine, and a firm favourite! I know many people have problems with Dapol motors - the one in my 122 is a bit grindy - but the 33 is brilliant! I've just pre-ordered a Dapol 56, so I hope it's more like the 33 than the 122! All the best from Shelfington, and Ian.
Great investigation work there, well worth noting the importance of different point sets, thanks Ian, take care 😊
Thanks very much Phil! You know I love a good experiment! All the best, Ian.
Got fed-up with problems with Peco track. Went over to Kato their electrified points and crossovers have been problem free so far. Takes a bit more landscaping to make them look authentic.
With JRMI and DigiKeijs DR5000 controller things now work faultlessly. Have had a lot of fun installing stay alive in 060 ngauge locomotives to stop them stalling at very low speeds.
Hi John! I think I'll be fine with the streamline points now I've decided to go with them, although am still undecided about whether to go with code 80 or 55! I looked at Kato track early on when I was planning the layout, but just couldn't seem to be able to make the track go where I wanted it to! I'm still to explore the world of JMRI, but am really looking forward to that part as I have a software engineering background! Well done on fitting stay alives, I don't think I've got the skill set for that! All the best, Ian.
Hi Ian yet another excellent video fully extolling why you should consider streamline points.. Also tx for part one I have now taken delivery of my Westhill Wagon works tools, as you demonstared, should help no end, and am going to take your advice re the soldering station as well, as my trusty Antec has recently expired..
On a seperate matter would you consider making up some of your track gauges on a commercial basis, I do not have the printer you have hence my asking, if you would consider what would the cost / leadtime be ? Many thanks Mark
Thanks very much Mark! Yes, those Westhill Wagon Works Rail Jointer Mates are really fantastic aren't they? The soldering station too is turning out to be a really great acquisition too! Just having control over the temperature makes things so much easier than relying on guesswork, which I had to do with my old soldering iron! Sorry, but I'm not currently planning on selling the track templates! I've got a few ideas though, for different templates, that I'm currently working on, so may do in the future! There should be a video out next week with the first of those if I have time to complete it! Thanks again! All the best, Ian.
I'm thinking of having twin ovals and instead of points, will place diagonal crossovers from sidings, thus reducing two lots of points...
Hi David! Yes, crossovers can be a really useful device for diverting across tracks! I'm actually in two minds whether or not to use one to get into the marshalling yard from the outer loop! All the best, Ian.
Streamlines always the way to go settrack is for stater kits. I see you haven't used live frog though?
Hi Jules! Well, maybe, but there are some great layouts out there that use only setrack! I haven't actually built anything yet, other than test tracks, but I'm not convinced about having live frogs! Even if I were to go with code 55 I'd probably go with Unifrog points and not electrify the frog! It may not be a popular theory, but as long as I keep the switch rails clean, there shouldn't be any problems! Famous last words? Cheers, Ian.
Hi Ian, I note that the ones you are looking at replacing for version 40 are not the same configuration as you’ve tested - they are only a single “s”, rather than multiple back to back “s”es.
I wonder if you have tested this much? I have done a lot of testing with single “s” configurations, and have found it to be reliable.
Hi Nathan! Yes, with the plan I show, the highlighted points have already been replaced as streamline! Originally, these were setrack, and I added "spacer" straight sections to try and ease the severity of the curve! I'd already removed the double S-curve! There are back-to-back points to form the runaround!, although I'm only expecting to use locos in this configuration! Like I say, I'm still working on this version, and will probably go back to the double S-curve in some places in the quarry, now that I know the streamline points work successfully! I've tested single S-curves too, and they seem reliable even when using setrack at low speeds! Sorry for the confusion! All the best, Ian.
@@iansngauge ahhhh I see! That makes a lot more sense then. Thanks for the clarification!
Hey now that you have streamline geometry.. are you tempted by the scissors crossing? I have no practical need for one, but, I think it would look great and be an interesting challenge.
Hi Nathan! No problem, it's good that you noticed the differences, and I should have done a better job at explaining what I was showing! Hmm! I'm not sure I need (or want) any more challenges, interesting or not! Lol! I had a diamond crossing in my old design, and it worked quite well, but the scissors crossing may be a step too far! I'll never say never though! :) All the best, Ian.
Hi Ian. Would you please remind us which code track you are using?
Hi Paul! I'm using code 80 track! I've considered using code 55, but am a bit uncomfortable with laying the flexible track that would be required for the curved sections of the two main loops, especially as they're on a foam base, and also have a gradient! I'd much prefer to play it safe and use setrack in these areas! Cheers, Ian.
Hello Ian, I have found that some items of stock just hate points no matter what I do.
Hi Simon! Haha! There's always at least one thing that won't play ball isn't there? Cheers, Ian.
@@iansngauge Oh yes. One stubborn little bugger!
The ladder track should be straight, no making s curves.
Hi! While technically that is correct, if each siding had a head shunt that would not be the case! Remember this is testing, and that this is a scenario that will occur in my eventual marshalling yard design! Cheers, Ian.