Going back to code 80?!

[mmagliaro]

AHA! I knew HO scale had something (couldn't remember the name) for forming consistent curves, but I didn't know there were Sweepsticks for N scale. Now, I'm even more inclined to using ME flextrack.

One more question. Since ME makes only #6 turnouts, how troublesome would it be to use Atlas turnouts every now and then? Would they look out of place, etc.?


Hmm... Kiz is the only
person I know who can
make a 90 degree corner
in flex track...

Oh yeah... Sweepsticks are made in N.  They are magnificent, worth every penny of their modest price.  I have never had curves
as perfect and uniform as I do using those things.

As for the #6 turnouts, well, I don't use ME flex because I think the Atlas turnouts stand out too much from the ME track,
so there's my answer on that one.  But I do know that other people mix Atlas turnouts with ME track, so it must not bother
everybody.
You have other options.

You could buy some FastTracks jigs and make your own.

You could also buy ready-made code 55 turnouts built with ME rail.   A guy on eBay, jscottw, sells many different types all the time. 
I bought two curved turnouts that he made for my last layout.  They were flawless.  They are expensive, but he does
excellent work.  I thought his turnouts blended in with the ME flex really well.

Functionally, there is no problem mixing the brands.  ME and Atlas flex and turnouts mate up with each other just fine.
I can just see the difference in the look of the ties, and it bugs me enough that I avoid mixing the two.
For my curved trestle, the ME section was elevated, and it comes out of a tunnel and disappears behind a  mountain
at the other end.  Since there is never see any ME track connected to, or near, any Atlas track, it doesn't stand out

[VonRyan]

It's important for readers to know that as I'm writing this, I've got a big smile on my face and a jovial attitude because I really love working on N scale track! Actually, using ME flex and hand-laying your turnouts is a pretty good thing, and has been the "ideal" solution for me since the early 80's when I used Railcraft code 70 and hand laid code 70 turnouts (it was necessary...I couldn't find any commercially available code 70 turnouts although I think Shinohara offered them at that time...but I didn't know it).

However, and I'm going to capitalize this...YOU DO NOT NEED EXPENSIVE FAST TRACK JIGS AND FIXTURES TO MAKE TURNOUTS. Everybody got that?  I've never used any fixtures, just my Dremel, my flush cutters, my bench grinder, two thin metal straight edges, a small assortment of files, a couple of pairs of pliers and tweezers, Railcraft 3-point gauges, and two NMRA N-scale clearance gauges.  Oh...and an old 30W Archer soldering iron with a wedge tip.  Except for the Railcraft (now Micro Engineering) 3-point gauges, you've probably got all of the above at your workbench or in your garage.

I use downloadable (for free from Proto87stores and Fast Tracks) turnout PDF's, printed out on my Epson printer at 100%, cut them out, tape them to a flat 1X4 about a foot long, and go to work.  Nobody needs expensive jigs and fixtures to roll your own turnouts (am I repeating myself?). 

All you have to know is how to cut and file rail, how to solder, and how a turnout works.

If I don't group a bunch of turnouts together (I like to do that) into a monolithic unit, I can build a #8 code 55 in about an hour.  A little less for a code 40 and I don't build code 70 turnouts any more.  Since I bought all of my materials years ago, they cost me about $1.25 each.  If you buy all the materials today, they're gonna cost you about a dollar more per turnout (and...if you don't use expensive jigs and fixtures).

Here's a photo of three code 55 turnouts (built as a monolithic unit) being built by me on my paper template...one #4wye and two #8's...


I also hand-lay code 40 trackage on my Park City Branch (both track and turnouts), but I prefer the way Railcraft (if you can still find it) or ME code 40 flex looks over plain hand-laid trackage because of its fine spikehead details.  PCB hand-laid track looks "bare" to me without tie plates and spike heads.

Here's a photo of my code 40 trackage at the Park City Yard (in Echo) adjacent to the coaling facility.


From a cost standpoint, hand laid code 40 trackage (not turnouts) is way more expensive than ME flex.  Both wood and PCB ties really jack the cost up.  Of course, it's fully pizza cutter compatible since there are no spikehead details whatsoever to deal with.  If you want to detail it (and make it even more expensive) Proto87Stores has NS superdetailing frets of spike and tieplate details for N-scale code 40 (not for code 55) which will not interfere with pizza cutters.

It's a lot easier to just use my Railcraft (or ME when I run out of my Railcraft) code 40 flex because I don't have any pizza cutters running on my layout to worry about.

For the REALLY insane out there, there is always code 30 "ribbon rail" that is just flat wire, with no "rail" profiles.  Here's a photo of my good friend Gregg's code 30, unpainted, unweathered trackwork on his Nn3 RGS which fills his entire basement.


Here's another shot of his trackwork with motive power on it.


Since I took these photos on Gregg's layout, he's painted, ballasted and weathered some of his track.  I don't notice at all that the rail is flat...it's beyond the resolution of my eyeballs!! He puts a "blob" of solder on his PCB ties to support the rail, since the top and bottom are not flat, but rounded.  I also don't notice them either...even in my photos after the scenery is done.

You'll also notice that Gregg's turnouts are stub switches.  His stuff runs flawlessly.

For those of you who think that the height of the rail is really noticeable if you get really close and/or take really detailed, close up photos from the side, here's a really really close up of Railcraft code 70 rail that's been painted, ballasted and weathered.  Does the height bug you?  I don't even notice it. 
 

Now, those of you who think I'm talking "fine scale" here...I'm not.  That would involve new flanges on everything I own, plus all the turnouts would have to be re-laid to proto160 clearances.  My stuff is just plain old NMRA standards (clearances), with a few of my own standards thrown in that make turnouts look more prototypical such as proper length frogs, guard rails and closure points.

There are two main reasons to roll your own turnouts.  First, they're a whole lot cheaper, so you can put that extra money into whatever else you like in your life.  Second, making your own really opens up what you can do with your layout in your given space.  For instance, I needed a center siding arrangement on a curve, so I built two #6's and a curved #8 which worked perfectly for my space.  I couldn't have done that with commercially available turnouts.  The other side of the center siding required two #8's and one #4 Wye...I also couldn't have done that with commercially available code 55 turnouts.

Of course I realize that there are many out there who could not care less about detailed trackwork.  This post isn't for them, but for those of you who may be holding back building your own turnouts because you think you gotta buy expensive jigs and fixtures before you make a single turnout.  Nope...just make 'em like I do...on paper templates, and remember, you'll have about three failures before you get one that works and looks good.  Learning "the ropes" takes on-hands experience.

You also won't worry about whether or not the factories in China have been bought or sold or burnt down or whatever.  You can just make your own turnouts, and...your own track if you have to.  Or, you can use ME flex, which is made here in the good, ol' USA, instead of stuff made by slave labor in Communist China. (  )

... That c40 and c30 (Nn3) trackwork is AMAZING 
I can no longer look at code 80 the same way let alone code 55...

-Cody F.

[DKS]

Just to push the rail height envelope a little more, here's a switch laid using Code 25 "rail" (really just flat wire, like the Code 30)--





And a Z scale switch (equivalent to Nn3) using the same Code 25 rail:





The above could serve as a foretaste of an Nn3 layout I'm just starting to build.

[Scottl]

There you go, teasing us about Nn3 again.  We want concept, pictures, details....

[robert3985]

As for the #6 turnouts, well, I don't use ME flex because I think the Atlas turnouts stand out too much from the ME track,
so there's my answer on that one.  But I do know that other people mix Atlas turnouts with ME track, so it must not bother
everybody.

You have other options.

You could buy some FastTracks jigs and make your own.

Functionally, there is no problem mixing the brands.  ME and Atlas flex and turnouts mate up with each other just fine.
I can just see the difference in the look of the ties, and it bugs me enough that I avoid mixing the two.
For my curved trestle, the ME section was elevated, and it comes out of a tunnel and disappears behind a  mountain
at the other end.  Since there is never see any ME track connected to, or near, any Atlas track, it doesn't stand out

OR...(this is getting repetitive) you could make your own turnouts WITHOUT EXPENSIVE FAST TRACK JIGS AND FIXTURES.

As far as mixing Atlas 55 turnouts with ME track, and the difference in ties.  Mostly the differences disappear if you paint, ballast and weather your track.  Stating the obvious, prototype turnouts have several different support brackets etc., on the sides of the rails, so the larger Atlas doohickies holding the track to the ties don't look too out of place.

Also, railroads don't use the same size ties, or the same spacing system wide.  Light-use trackage is laid with shorter ties spaced further apart than heavy-use trackage.  Medium-duty trackage also has its own specs as far as ties are concerned.  So, its very likely that "standard" tie lengths on turnouts vs straights will not be the same.  U.P. regularly uses no "standard" ties on their turnouts starting a couple of ties ahead of the headblock for the entire length of the turnout.

If it's the difference in the size of the tie that bothers you, you could cut away the "standard" sized ties on Atlas 55 turnouts, and slide on ME ties.  I do this on my hand laid turnouts to maximize spikehead tie detailing and you can see the technique on my previously posted photos on this thread.  As nit-picky as I am about track detailing, I have not yet decided if adding Proto87 Stores turnout tie-plate details to my hand laid turnouts is worth it because of the tripling of time adding that level of detail takes.  Three to four hours per turnout is just too long for me.

As to the differences between Atlas 55 and ME 55 tie sizes and spacing...it's a mixed bag.  Spacing on the Atlas 55 flex is just about right for heavily trafficked trackage, but the tie lengths are just right for medium trafficked trackage (short).  It's just the opposite with ME 55...the tie spacing is perfect for medium trafficked trackage, but the tie lengths are just right for heavily trafficked trackage (long).

I had planned on using Atlas 55 for my heavily trafficked mainlines, and ME 55 for lighter-duty mainline center sidings because to my eye, the tie spacing is more evident than tie length.  However, after looking at photos taken of Atlas 55, the way oversized rail attachment doohickies really bugged me.  So I decided to go with ME (actually I use old Railcraft)  code 55 on all mainline trackage, with tie spacers cut and ties moved slightly further apart on the mainline center sidings.

Old Railcraft code 40 flex was perfect for tie spacing and size, and rail size for lightly trafficked trackage.  I haven't measured its ME replacement, but I'm assuming it will not be equal as far as fine details are concerned, just as the new ME 55 isn't as finely detailed as old Railcraft flex.

However, you can cut the between-ties-under-the-rail spacers and pull the ties further apart for really light duty code 40 ME trackage.  I've done this in a couple of dioramas, and it really designates lightly trafficked trackage, especially when it's adjacent to "normal" mainline trackage.  Differences in ballast and weathering will also assist in designating trackage usage differences.  For instance, ballast on my Park City Yard at Echo (code 40) is cinders, whereas the mainline (code 55) ballast is a light gray limestone blend...like the prototype was.

Track is not just "track", and the study and modeling of it can be a lot of fun for those who are detail-oriented.

[DKS]

There you go, teasing us about Nn3 again.  We want concept, pictures, details....

I will be starting a thread in the Layout Engineering section soon. I just need to get the plans firmed up a bit more, and right now between Sandy, a flu, and a knee gone bad again, time's a bit short in supply.

Sorry for taking the thread drift that much further afield... back to our regularly scheduled topic.

[robert3985]

Just to push the rail height envelope a little more, here's a switch laid using Code 25 "rail" (really just flat wire, like the Code 30)--



The above could serve as a foretaste of an Nn3 layout I'm just starting to build.

Beautiful work DKS.  As has been previously stated about your Nn3 layout..."concept, pictures...details"!

[wcfn100]

OR...(this is getting repetitive) you could make your own turnouts WITHOUT EXPENSIVE FAST TRACK JIGS AND FIXTURES.

You can probably stop then as we've covered this many times to the same end.  People will slowly come around.

As far as mixing Atlas 55 turnouts with ME track, and the difference in ties.  Mostly the differences disappear if you paint, ballast and weather your track

People say that, but it's just not true.  It stands out like a sore thumb regardless of treatment.  Even if mostly buried, the rounded tie end are still easily visible.

I started playing around with some ME flex where I cut off the extra length off the ties and it's a start, but a jig is needed to really make it viable.  This also helps with the severe draft angles and/or worn out molds that plague ME track.


Jason

[robert3985]

You can probably stop then as we've covered this many times to the same end.  People will slowly come around.

People say that, but it's just not true.  It stands out like a sore thumb regardless of treatment.  Even if mostly buried, the rounded tie end are still easily visible.

I started playing around with some ME flex where I cut off the extra length off the ties and it's a start, but a jig is needed to really make it viable.  This also helps with the severe draft angles and/or worn out molds that plague ME track.


Jason

Hi Jason,

I'll stop when I feel like it.  Obviously, you know the facts, but also obviously, others do not.

As to Atlas turnouts combined with ME track...I don't worry about it since my own turnouts are hand laid. However, like Atlas 80 and Peco 80/55, I am sure that painting, ballasting and weathering will make the combination look better (examples of which I've seen on several fellow model railroader's layouts here in Utah) than just bare track .  I wouldn't do it for myself, but it is a valid alternative, and still much closer to US prototype appearing  than Atlas 80/Peco55.

By the way, I always lightly sand the ties of ME flex to square up the tie ends a bit.  I sandwich it between a 3' 1X4 and my shop workbench (A big solid core door on tall sawhorses), clamp it down, and use a wide sanding block to just touch the tie ends by sanding downward.  Doesn't take long and any fuzz is on the bottom edge of the ties.  Since the ME ties are longer than Atlas ties, you could sand a couple of dozen ME ties back from the Atlas turnout ends to square 'em up and make 'em the same length progressively for a couple of inches.  Or, just make your ballast even with the tops of your ties.

But, if it still bugs ya really bad, about the only alternative is to make your own turnouts or only use ME #6's.

Sometimes, being a nit-picker is a lot of trouble! 

[peteski]

Peteski,
I tried to answer that for you. See my earlier response. Much of Steve's layout is code 80; the Mulford area and Jingletown. I'm not sure if he redid the yard in code 55. The staging yards are code 55. The folks that operate with him are HO and from my own experience they can be a bit heavy handed. He's had less problems with the code 80 than with the code 55. YMMV.

I appreciate your insight on this Roger.

As far as those elephant-handed H0 guys go, I know them well.  I participate in a round-robin layout operating group where most of the layouts are H0 with couple of N scale ones.  I will admit that a heavy-handed person (not specifically H0 modeler) can cause some damage to N scale models: Things like wheel sets can pop out of a truck, occasional broken coupler or even broken handrails on a locomotive, just to name a few. But in all the years I've seen damage caused by heavy-handed operators, I have never seen them actually damage N scale track (either c55 or c80).  So, I have a really hard time buying this line of reasoning for preferring c80 track.

[robert3985]

I saw a fellow N-scaler drop a hammer on his track twice while working on his module at our permanent set up location a few years back.  It wasn't code 80, but Atlas 55...and it really did a number on it with an indent in one rail the first time, and both rails indented the second time.

He had to splice in a section on both indents because he couldn't properly reverse the vertical bends in the rails.  Luckily, he hadn't ballasted any track at that point.

Although I am not "sure"....I assume it would have done the same kind of damage to code 80...probably not as bad, but still needing replacement.

Like Peteski, I've never had any track damage from any ham-handed operators.  One of the people that used to work regularly on my Echo Yard with its code 55 and 40 trackage was a fellow we called "Big Art" with fingers the size of summer sausages.  It always amazed me that he could do such fine work with 'em.

[jdcolombo]

The hand-laid turnouts and other rail in the photos posted over the last few messages are awe-inspiring.  I really have to try to do this, especially the turnouts.  I have installed sound decoders and speakers in 0-8-0 tenders; handlaying a turnout has got to be within my general skill set . . .

John C.