Help with rails

[realkingcobra]

Interesting that you'd be insulted by anything I said and try to lash out in such a way.. I did real all the posts in the thread and I never insulted anyone. I really don't understand any reason to get all grumpy and personal over all this. was my post too long? maybe just didn't sleep well? what's the beef here? can we settle it and move forward , I noticed other posts getting childish in similar ways..

The issue is when you put out your information about cushions, nose heights, and how the nose heights are based on the size of the balls, NOT understanding that when rails are built with different thicknesses, the rule of thumb is thrown out the door, yet you insist on explaining how the nose heights determine how the cushions are going to play, oblivious to the fact that the position of said cushions behind the nose height play a MAJOR roll in exactly how those cushion WILL react. I've been explaining those differences for years, and most members here have a very good understanding of why the cushions play different, on different rails, even with the same cushions. Yet, you would disagree with this understanding, but you have no basis to disagree, because your knowledge is extremely limited! But that's ok, keep learning, everyone else has, and has been for years. Another thing you do, is put more faith in the manufacturers than they deserve, because they DON'T service the shit they sell, they rely on OTHERS to do that, yet they offer NO advice to solve ANY problems THEY create!

 

[Hard Knock Cues]

You're right, but thats to the finish of the rail cap. The thickness that influences how the cushions are going to react, what kind of cushions, and the nose height needed is based on the thickness of the sub-rail where the top back of the cushion meets the rail, to the playing surface of the slate. Brunswick built their rails to a finished thickness of 1 3/4" but then put a 3 degree downward slope on the subrail cap in front of the featherstrip to lower the subrail to 1 11/16" when it meets up with the topside back of the cushions. Gold crown rails are milled to 1 11/16" thickness, then have a 1/16" thickness of formica added to the rail behind the featherstrip to finish off the look of the rails, creating a slight step down to the head of the subrail thickness. This thickness of subrail combined with K55 cushions is the only rail measurements that match up with the 63.5% +_- 1% of the object ball thickness, giving you the nose height of 1 27/64"ths plus or minus 1/32"ths of an inch, which equals 62.5-64.5% of the ball thickness, higher or lower from the desired 63.5% or 1 27/64"ths of an inch nose height.

In my opinion this post explains it quite well. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to set up rails with the correct and incorrect angles to show what happens, you know like slow motion. Maybe even a diagram of the sweet spot through the rubber from the ball contact if that makes sense.

 

[fastone371]

In my opinion this post explains it quite well. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to set up rails with the correct and incorrect angles to show what happens, you know like slow motion. Maybe even a diagram of the sweet spot through the rubber from the ball contact if that makes sense.

You could do a side by side test on red and blue label Diamonds. The reds=not good the blues=much better after making a sub-rail fix or rail thickness fix. I'm not sure if they made1 change or both changes but that was the gist of the red label issues that were corrected on the blues with RKC's help as far as I am aware.

 

[realkingcobra]

In my opinion this post explains it quite well. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to set up rails with the correct and incorrect angles to show what happens, you know like slow motion. Maybe even a diagram of the sweet spot through the rubber from the ball contact if that makes sense.

The miter angles have nothing to do with the way the cushions play. The miter angles sole purpose is to marry the cushions to the rail, and set the nose height to what ever is determined to be needed.

 

[realkingcobra]

In my opinion this post explains it quite well. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to set up rails with the correct and incorrect angles to show what happens, you know like slow motion. Maybe even a diagram of the sweet spot through the rubber from the ball contact if that makes sense.

I've given the formula several times used to determine what the miter angle, or bevel needed to mount the cushion on the rails. In order to determine the bevel for the cushions to mount on, you need to know how thick the subrail is, and at what nose height you're going to need, based on which cushions are being used, or recommended. Once those to figures are known, then the bevel to mount the cushions can be determined. As rails become thinner, nose heights change, and as the nose heights and rail thicknesses change, so does the maximum energy of the cushions, and you MUST know these effects if you're going to try and make cushions play at their best!! And calling the cushion manufacturers is a joke, because they CAN'T tell you at which thickness of rails, and at what nose height will your cushions play at their best!! Don't believe me, make the call yourselves!! The minute the cushion manufacturers start asking you questions about the rails, their dimensions and such, they're asking questions so they can put that information on a CAD program and tell you what bevel you need on your rails to get the nose height you want! That answer does NOT answer the question, at what rail thickness and at what nose height will your cushions play at their BEST????

 

[Hard Knock Cues]

I've given the formula several times used to determine what the miter angle, or bevel needed to mount the cushion on the rails. In order to determine the bevel for the cushions to mount on, you need to know how thick the subrail is, and at what nose height you're going to need, based on which cushions are being used, or recommended. Once those to figures are known, then the bevel to mount the cushions can be determined. As rails become thinner, nose heights change, and as the nose heights and rail thicknesses change, so does the maximum energy of the cushions, and you MUST know these effects if you're going to try and make cushions play at their best!! And calling the cushion manufacturers is a joke, because they CAN'T tell you at which thickness of rails, and at what nose height will your cushions play at their best!! Don't believe me, make the call yourselves!! The minute the cushion manufacturers start asking you questions about the rails, their dimensions and such, they're asking questions so they can put that information on a CAD program and tell you what bevel you need on your rails to get the nose height you want! That answer does NOT answer the question, at what rail thickness and at what nose height will your cushions play at their BEST????

So would you say the "maximum energy" of the cushion is the hit line( imaginary horizontal line at ball contact) going through the cushion at the concave void on the backside? In another word if the noise height is correct but the bevel is off the hit line would go through more of the solid part of the rubber. In a sense the hollow void on the backside of the rubber gives that push back and creates a better bounce?

 

[realkingcobra]

So would you say the "maximum energy" of the cushion is the hit line( imaginary horizontal line at ball contact) going through the cushion at the concave void on the backside? In another word if the noise height is correct but the bevel is off the hit line would go through more of the solid part of the rubber. In a sense the hollow void on the backside of the rubber gives that push back and creates a better bounce?

Accufast cushions are flat on the backside, si the bounce has nothing to do with that. For example, if someone were to, install K66 cushions on an Olhausen table, adjust the bevel to set the nose of the cushions at 1 7/16" nose height, which is what everyone believes it should be, then why would the cushions play so dead on rebounds?

 

[Hard Knock Cues]

Accufast cushions are flat on the backside, si the bounce has nothing to do with that. For example, if someone were to, install K66 cushions on an Olhausen table, adjust the bevel to set the nose of the cushions at 1 7/16" nose height, which is what everyone believes it should be, then why would the cushions play so dead on rebounds?

My understanding is the k66 would sit at enough of an angle that the nose would give in an upward direction, hence pinching the ball under the nose.

 

[realkingcobra]

My understanding is the k66 would sit at enough of an angle that the nose would give in an upward direction, hence pinching the ball under the nose.

That's right, so the importance of the position of the cushion being mounted behind the nose height, is just as important as the nose height itself. So the nose height and position of the cushions as I've said, goes back to the thickness of the subrail. That KNOWN figure is the beginning point to determine the correct nose height of any cushions mounted on any rails.

 

[Hard Knock Cues]

Thanks for your time RKC, I do believe I understood it before, but now I fully understand.

 

[realkingcobra]

The 63.5% plus or minus 1% of the ball thickness to determine the nose height of 1 27/64"ths of an inch, ONLY applies to subrails being 1 11/16"ths of an inch thick, AND the use of K55 profile cushions! That rule of thumb does NOT apply to K66 cushions on 1 11/16" thick subrails, OR any other subrails LESS than 1 11/16"ths thick with ANY other cushions, not even the K55 cushions. If you mount K66 cushions on a set of GV rails as the subrails are designed for K55 cushions, those K66 cushions are naturally going to match up to a 1 9/16"ths nose height, to high, pinching the balls, dead banks, well below the energy line of the K66 cushions. If you recut the subrail bevel to lower the K66 nose height to 1 27/64"ths, then the back end height of the cushions is well above the maximum energy of the cushions cresting a downward angle of the cushions to the nose height, which in turn causes the balls to bank short, springy, and balls hopping of the rails when the cloth breaks in.

If you install K55 cushions on a Gandy table with 1 5/8"thick subrails without changing the subrail bevel, the nose height would be 1 1/4" balls hopping immediately, to low of nose height. But if you change the bevel to raise the K55 nose height to 1 3/8"ths, because of the difference between the K55 and K66 cushions profiles, you may have the correct nose height, but by design, the back of the cushions will have been lowered to compensate for that 1/8"th inch difference between the cushion profiles, so the K55 cushions would in fact have their energy line below the line of energy, with an upward approach to the object balls, causing them to pinch under the nose of the cushions instead of rebounding in and out like they're suppose to react.

 

[TrxR]

So am I understanding that the cushions have to be at a specific angle as well as nose height? So if modifying subrails you would have to bevel them to get the specific angle at the proper nose height? The angle I'm talking about would be the downward slope away from the top of the rail.

I maybe be way off but am trying to learn.

 

[realkingcobra]

So am I understanding that the cushions have to be at a specific angle as well as nose height? So if modifying subrails you would have to bevel them to get the specific angle at the proper nose height? The angle I'm talking about would be the downward slope away from the top of the rail.

I maybe be way off but am trying to learn.

Yes, the body of the cushion and the nose height have to be in balance with each other in order to produce the best results.

 

[snookered_again]

so all this applies to triangular cushions as used on Brunswick tables and many other modern tables, and yes you made some particular points about the rail angle. Perhaps that would be changed if you were making new rails or building a pool table.. In many cases the replacement of rubber would reuse the same rails so I would think the the angle would not normally be changed. I know some will order "new rails" for a table, or perhaps there may be reasons for choosing a different profile. Some make entire tables themselves


Right now, I'm setting up a Brunswick-Balke-Collender table from about 1908 and it has L shaped rubber on snooker style rails. I dont think this angle you are speaking about even applies to a snooker table unless it has triangular rubber.


I managed over a few days to move the whole 1600 pounds of it from my van to my trailer, across my wide sidewalk onto the boulevard, and then up a great big staircase.. The slates were easy, the base frame was not easy. I did the whole thing myself using rollers and a come along. , some plywood and blocking. a couple of ladders with planks on them to act as a "bridge"
I found I can roll stuff on the level or on a slight grade if I put pipes between sheets of plywood, but if it's too much of a slope it gets difficult.. The base frame is way heavier than the slates, it is also not made to disassemble and at one point I figured I was stuck but after removing some door casings and things it just barely fit through into my living room. I got the slates up to the porch by myself with a come-along and had a friend help lift them onto the table .. I made up a dolley with wheels that go sideways to get the slates in through my door.. It worked but we manged to just use straps and we were able to lift the slates together.. I figure they are 300 pounds each.. or so..

so now I will reassemble and the rails looked nice so I will just reuse them. some of the slate-backers where the felt is stapled were a bit punky so I'm replacing what wood parts are necessary. I think someone along the line stored the slates for a while on a concrete floor and caused a bit of rot in some of the boards that back the slates, but the frame is fine.. I'll just replace whats necessary and leave the rest original. some of the curved wood parts near the pockets were missing chunks so I recreated what I needed to with epoxy and wood dust using a molding process, that worked nice. none of that can be seen when reassembled so I replaced what is needed. these frames are bolted to the slate and the slate bolted through them. I think the idea is to lock the frame and the slate together very solidly so it acts together as weight, the frame of the table is all bolted together to absorb impact too. I bet it will have a really beautiful bounce and be very silent, this thing is so well made it's incredible. It will be perfect to practice on.

I'm questioning how I can measure the rails on this table for the correct height? or verify the correct ball size, or both?
since the cushions in this case are L shaped , this changes the scenario and I assume it is still such that they need to be correct and I may not need to change anything.. since I did not get the balls and was not able to speak with the original owner, I dont know if he would have had 2 " balls or something other? how could I confirm what the ball size for this table should be?

I often play on a 1930's 6 x 12 table with some really experienced players. I think that table is set up wrong as on hard shots, the balls do bounce. I tried using balls that are slightly smaller and they seemed better in my opinion ( no ball bounce) but for whatever reason they all prefer the larger balls. They have both available.

I think they prefer 2 1/16 but have the 2" available. they even went so far as to buy the "precision balanced" ones. My take is that they are just used to seeing a bit of hop and used to it.. In my opinion the balls shouldn't hop and this is causing inaccuracy , they are just used to compensating for it. perhaps it challenges them more by also making the pockets smaller , in effect.

so on this table would you go by a formula of 63 1/2% of ball size to contact area , or is there some other factor? since the cushions are not wedge shaped the contact area isn't really affected by changing ball size, and I doubt the rails are cut to anything but 90 degrees, so I dont know how to measure what optimum would be, I know it does still have some effect.

on a table where the bolts go up or down through the rails, then maybe the rail height can be shimmed, but on this table there are a lot of bolts that go through the rails right into the edges of the slate.. Its probably not possible to shim the rail height or the bolts wouldn't line up. i probably have no reason to change this , I just wondered if I could check if it's correct somehow?

I do not know if I will find any of those bolt holes into the slates stripped and I'm curious as to how they threaded slate to accept bolts. I assume they would have needed some sort of filler, or similar. I don't think you can actually machine thread slate.. maybe they used sulfur or something like it.. I've heard of molten sulfur being used to bolt machines to the floor, nowadays we'd use epoxy or a locking bolt or maybe lead plugs. Back then , who knows? I think plaster was used to fill imperfections like chips near where slates meet is plaster of Paris suitable for this? Ive heard of bondo or even beeswax but I dont want a ball drop to cause a dent either. JB weld might be ok I guess.

what I found was that these backer frames had bolts through the slate to hold the slate down into the frames and also some went right through to hold the slate into the frame of the table. these holes that secure the slate down into the frames, had holes that were filled and when I picked the plaster out I found dowels, wood dowels down into holes.. these holes in the slate that look like they were made for taper head bolts.. maybe it had screws that were lost? replaced with dowels? not sure.. I dont know if it matters much , I can use dowels.. It just seemed weird they would go to the work of drlling holes in the slate to accept tapered head screws and then use dowels.. I assume I'm not the second owner but maybe one of several, and it's seen some minor changes.. I guess as long as the slate is bolted to the frame in some ridgid way its all ok.

all the frames that support the slate are numbered and the numbers match the rest of the table so I wished to retain those numbers as much as possible.

I found the theory a bit interesting, my friends table has big hunks of iron in the rails to make them heavy and solid, and on this table they took a different approach, they made the rails on this table solid by using all these bolts to tie the rail right into the slate itself as well as into the super heavy baseframe , to give the same effect, the more solid and heavy the rail is, the nicer the ball return, they obviously went to a lot of effort and expense, even back then, to get that right. I think that makes this table a bit special.

I have the fame level to fairly close and there is some very slight inconsistency I will shim for as I get the slates levelled. When I got the table it had no balls or cues so I didnt get a chance to try it so I will set it up as it was , the rails and cloth looked nice so I can reuse them.