Photo-etched details for handlaid turnouts

[Chris333]

I have a N and Z scale nylon screen for 3" ballast. They are measured in microns and bought from Small Parts Inc.

[robert3985]

Ed,  I'm a little late to the party here, but this project is amazing.  One of my biggest "bothers" about hand-laying all of my turnouts is the lack of spike and plate details, but after perusing what was available through P:87 Stores, I thought they'd be too damned small to see, especially after paint and weathering. But, I could be wrong.

What I really like about yours (appearance wise) are (1) that you use spikes, which REALLY adds to its appearance...including the stock rail supports at the switch, (2) the NB details on the closure points and the frog, (3) that you decided to (wisely) go with the P:87 heel blocks, and, of course (4) all of the standard and specialized tie plates.

Some areas that you agree could be improved would be a way to not use, or hide the PCB ties, but frankly, on my PCB turnouts, after they're painted and weathered, they are difficult to pick out.  One way to hide 'em on yours would be to place them in between the ties (as you suggested), but mark each one where the rail foot goes over it, then mill them down to about half-height in between the rail foot solder points, then when you ballast, it'll cover up the fiberglass.  It'd be tedious, but I don't think you'd need too many of 'em to ensure the rails stay in place.

Gordy Odegard built his early code 40 turnouts using Pliobond...heated...and didn't have a problem with them that he ever revealed.  HO and larger scales use spikes only and don't have any problems, so maybe the PCB ties are overkill.  Maybe not too.  Perhaps some of P:87's extra long spikes strategically placed with a bit of runny CA to anchor them would be the ticket.

I'm using P:87 heel blocks on ALL of my new turnouts and I'm not running a wire to them.  So far, no electrical problems but I'm using Neolube at the heel blocks and at the toes, which keeps the paint off the rails, and adds electrical conductivity.  If I have probs, then I'll just solder in jumpers.

Speaking of heel blocks/separate points and adding throw-bars into the mix, the heel blocks solve a multitude of throw-bar attachment problems.  From the very start of my hand-laying days in N-scale, using code 70 rail, the weak point (pun intended) in my turnouts was attaching the toes of the points to the PCB throw-bar.  At first, I did the typical no-hinge version of combining points and closure rails, and soldered what there was left of the rail foot (after filing the point toes) to a wide PCB throw-bar.  I just accepted that there were going to be problems, and it was always easy to just re-solder when they broke.  Then, after deciding to go with code 55 and code 40, I wanted to build my turnouts to be more prototypically proportioned, but also trouble free, so, I devised a protocol to bend the toes of the points at a 90 deg. angle, then file them nice, clean and sharp, with a big, angled piece of the rail foot pointing inward to solder to a regular width PCB tie.  It didn't look prototypical, but I figured it would never break. I also filed notches into the sides of the rails (on both sides) with a jeweler's triangular file where the heel blocks would be...to make hinges...actually filing into the rail web a bit to ensure flexibility. I soldered the feet of the closure rails behind the point heels to PCB ties to make the hinges really work, and get that "angled" look that prototype turnouts have where the point heels meet the closure rails.  I never had one of these notched hinges break in 17 years due to anything, much less metal fatigue.

First show I attended with my new hand-laid, better-looking turnouts on my modules, several of the C55 point toes, with the big, flat rail foot solder points, broke off.  Easy to fix, and over the years, I just expected to have to fix three or four of them every show...then again when I set back up at home and was operating.  The code 40 turnouts didn't break...ever.  Some of the code C55 turnouts on my Echo LDE have broken so many times that I've burned the copper cladding off the PCB throwbars because I've fixed them so many times, and they're a bitch to reinstall, involving getting under the module and removing the Tortoise throw-wire...then reinserting it when the new throw-bar is re-soldered...usually a two man operation.

When Andy at P:87 Stores introduced his "throw-bars", I got to thinking about the new modules I'm now building and all the turnouts I'm having to manufacture.  I wanted them to be both more prototypical looking than my previous turnouts, but also as close to 100% reliable as possible. Was it possible to do both at the same time?  This led me to start re-thinking the whole hinged point, throw-bar attachment problem, and I finally figured out what the problem was with my previous method.

You have to understand the geometry and the forces of the the throw-bar/point/hinge mechanism.  It's a parallelogram, and when the throw-bar moves, and the hinges are extra tight...like mine were with the notched rails, with the closure rails being soldered securely to PCB ties directly behind the point heels, this puts tremendous torque on the whole structure, and the weakest point (haha) are the soldered point toes.  C55 and C70 rails are much stiffer than C40 rails, and that's the reason the C40 throw-bar/point toes never came unsoldered...they flexed enough to absorb a lot of the torque when the switch gets thrown. 

There are two functional ways to solve the problem.  (1) Hinge the point toes at the throw-bar, but continue to use the monolithic (and excellent conducting) notched point/closure rails, or (2) Solder the point toes solidly to a PCB tie throw-bar and use either a cut down rail joiner (ala Micro Engineering) at the point heels, or use the much better looking P:87 heel blocks.  Both of these protocols destroy the solid parallelogram mechanism created by my earlier attempt to make a more prototypical-looking switch.  The hinged point toes eliminate most (virtually ALL) of the torque at the point toe/throw-bar attachment point, and the rail-joiner/P:87 heel blocks allow the point heels to move/slide back and forth enough to eliminate torque at the point toe/throw-bar attachment points.

Voila!  The problem is solved, and you using the P:87 heel blocks on your superdetailed turnout with its stiffened points will take away any torque you'd generate using the monolithic notched, or not-notched point/closure rail method.

This has been a problem for me for so long, I also hinge the point toes just because I'm paranoid, using P:87 triple-planed closure points so I don't have to file away any of my stock rails.  Here's a view of the latest iteration of my point toe hinges:

TOP:


BOTTOM:


Finally, one of the things about PCB ties that gives them away is the necessary gap in the copper cladding.  Modelers (myself included) regularly cut a notch down the middle of each tie that goes waaaay into the fiberglass.  The notch is usually much too deep and obvious (but easy to do) and putting them all on the same spot on each tie really draws the human eye to them because of pattern recognition.  What I do on turnouts nowadays, is take a fine oval jeweler's file and just kiss the tops of the ties at various angles and places to make a gap in just the copper cladding.  The oval-ness of the file automatically feathers this gap, but I still have to be careful to not make it too deep.  Before paint and weathering, it looks like Hell, but, after paint and weathering, they look like their wooden brethren.  Here's a photo of what I'm talking about while my turnout is still on the bench:



Whew!!  I hope my photos don't sully your masterpiece in any way Ed.  I agree that mine look "naked" compared to yours! But, maybe some of my techniques will assist you and others who are watching this extremely interesting thread.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Doug G.]

Ed, your switch is most impressive and I am always impressed with your trackwork Bob.

I have all the patience in the world (or at least I used to, it's been awhile) to rewind N scale motors but not to do the stuff you guys do with track.

Doug

[ednadolski]

Hi Doug, Thanks for the kind words!  I think if you have the touch to wind motors then trackwork is just another variation of the same core skill set, of which patience is the key element.  JMHO, anything worth doing is worth taking the time to do learn to do better.  While limitations are something that each of us has to deal with, it is only the self-imposed ones that are the hardest to overcome.

Hi Robert thanks much indeed for your thoughtful and informative posting!  Thanks too for posting the pics - I have a number pics of yours bookmarked in other threads, but now I don't have to go looking for them whenever I want to refer back for info or inspiration

I like your idea of feathering and staggering the gaps.  It certainly does help to break up any repetitive visual pattern that could be a distraction or giveaway.  In fact I just picked up a set of needle files including one with a rounded profile which should be useful for my future attempts.

I had considered milling down the PC ties as you suggest.  I think if done neatly, each tie could be covered with a thin piece of stripwood (like maybe some HO 1x6) stained to match the wood ties. This would make them very hard to distinguish from wood ties. My only concern is that milling them too thin could weaken them too much, so it would have to be done very carefully.

The other thought I had in that area was to do the PCB ties in between the wood ties, and use some 1/16 x 1/32 brass strip between the PCB ties and rail base.  This would basically lower the PCB tie so that it could be covered with ballast.  However due to tie thickness variations, this would probably require either a notch in the roadbed for each PCB tie, or else shim up all the wood ties so that the height of all ties with respect to the rail base would be uniform.

You could be right about the PCB ties turning out to be overkill in the long run as compared to Pliobond.  It's rather hard to be sure at this point,  I'm still concerned about things like thermal expansion and compressive rail stresses accumulating over time to result in creep.  Seems it would take more time & effort to find out, definitively, that to just keep building turnouts with PCB ties

You bring up a good point about the rigid parallelogram point geometry. Solder joints are simply not up to the kind of mechanical stresses that such a rigid structure can create (in the case of continuous point-closure rails). With either heel blocks or rail joiners, one point rail is always free to move enough to avoid having those large torques generated on the solder joints.  (Digression:  I suspect this is more of an issue in N scale than in HO, because (a) the throwbar in N scale is much smaller, therefore the area of the solder joint is smaller (and thus weaker) by the square of the scale difference, and (b) The point rail being longer in the larger scale actually has more opportunity to flex and therefore absorb some of the energy in the torque.)

I'm really impressed with your throwbars.  Question: it looks like the brass wire goes thru a hole drilled thru both the point rail base and the throwbar - is that correct?  Are these soldered in any way, and how does it all work for in-situ repairs?

Here are some further pictures with paint applied to the rails/details/ties.  I haven't had time yet to do the ballast so that will come later, but at this point it looks like the details are still reasonably visible, at least in the presence of strong lighting.


IMG_2126.jpg


IMG_2124.jpg


IMG_2120.jpg


IMG_2119.jpg


On the PCB ties I think they do blend in fairly well, even under the strong light.  This seems to be a function of the way in which the eye/mind processes colors.   It may be helpful to add some detailing akin to the bolt blocks that are sometimes present on gauge plates.  Altho not completely prototypical, that wold at least be suggestive of some level of intended design, rather than just some kind of missing element or hole in need of explanation.

Altho it seems minor, one thing I do notice is the absence of spikes where the PCB ties are.   I could perhaps resolve this by drilling #80 holes thru the solder joints and then installing spikes. Alternately, this would also be addressed by the approach of making lowered, totally-hidden PCB ties that lie in between the wood ones.


Thanks again all for looking!

Cheers,
Ed

[robert3985]

Did a drawing with some explanations about how I construct my hinged throwbars. 

I use P87 tri-planed closure points (short) on all of my turnouts nowadays, but my protocol could just as easily be used on conventional N-scale non-planed closure points.

If using a point heel-hinge such as a shortened railjoiner or the P87 hinges, the point toes don't really need to be hinged, but the .015" wire securing them will make them virtually bulletproof and not dependent on how well the copper cladding is attached to the fiberglass part of the PCB tie.

I discovered that I can't drill a .015" hole in the foot of the point toe rails consistently, so I can't pre-drill the underlying PCB tie part ot the throwbars with BOTH holes and get everything to line up.  So, I mount one (1) closure point toe to its respective PCB underlying tie using a single pre-drilled hole in the PCB tie, then move over to the adjacent point-toe...get it just where I want it as far as clearance is concerned, then drill the second mounting hole in the underlying PCB tie using the pre-drilled hole in the second point-toe rail foot as a guide, then mount it like the first one using the .015" brass wire.

These have to be done on the bench because a big part of getting the hinge/clamp tight enough to function properly is using a flatnose plier to clamp the wire, the point toe and the underlying PCB tie all at once.

I use markings and coatings of 2B pencil lead from one of my fine mechanical pencils on whatever I don't want be soldered as an anti-flux.  Works great and is very precise.

As far as "in-situ" repairs....if one of the wire throwbars comes unsoldered, then it would be ease to re-solder it.  If the PCB underlying part of the throwbar breaks...it would be a major fubar.  I designed this protocol to not need in situ repairs, as all of my old protocol turnouts only broke at the point toes...but, most of them have never broken after over 15 years of normal everyday use...and they were a seriously flawed design IMO.  I think these would only need repair under the most dire of circumstances.



Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[jagged ben]

Bob, I'm impressed just by the drawing.  Did you draw that by hand and then scan it to add the text?   I might have been able to do to that in high school but I think I've lost both the skill and the patience.   And I'm guessing I'm a couple decades younger than you.    

One thing I guess I'm not so keen on is the wire protruding below the ties and thus it must require careful channeling of clearance in your cork or whatever roadbed you use.  But I guess with some planning ahead and precise measuring that can be taken care of.

I guess I'm also unclear on just how you'd get the wire to hold the points down and prevent vertical alignment problems.  I can visualize what you're saying about the flat-jawed plier, but does the wire not bend and become looser over time?  Is it ordinary brass wire or did I miss something about the material?

[robert3985]

Bob, I'm impressed just by the drawing.  Did you draw that by hand and then scan it to add the text?   I might have been able to do to that in high school but I think I've lost both the skill and the patience.   And I'm guessing I'm a couple decades younger than you.    

One thing I guess I'm not so keen on is the wire protruding below the ties and thus it must require careful channeling of clearance in your cork or whatever roadbed you use.  But I guess with some planning ahead and precise measuring that can be taken care of.

I guess I'm also unclear on just how you'd get the wire to hold the points down and prevent vertical alignment problems.  I can visualize what you're saying about the flat-jawed plier, but does the wire not bend and become looser over time?  Is it ordinary brass wire or did I miss something about the material?

Thanks very much.  I drew this by hand, scanned it and increased contrast and brightness to get rid of the paper grain (and erased a few mistakes)...then added text, flattened the image and converted it to a JPEG before uploading it to Picasa.  I've been a professional senior-grade graphics and technical illustrator since my teens as well as a fine artist and pro photographer.  Still got the hand-eye control at 66 years! (Knock on wood!!)  So, this was fun and only took an hour and a half to sketch out, scan and modify.

The wires protruding below the PCB "underlying" ties only protrude .015".  As long as you know they're there, sanding in some relief isn't a big deal and only takes a few seconds with a small sanding block in the cork.  I haven't had any problems whatsoever with 'em.

How the wires hold the closure points in vertical registration is difficult to 'splain but easy to see when you build the turnout.  Let me give it an attempt. First, the parameters are that the hinge/clamp (that's what it is...both) has to hold the closure points tightly against the underlying PCB throwbar ties, and if you want them hinged...no solder between the rails and copper cladding. You can build these so that the closure point toes are also soldered to both the underlying PCB throwbar tie as well as the wire hinge/clamp.  The caveat is that you MUST use either a shortened rail joiner or the equivalent of the P87 closure point heel hinge to allow the closure point rails to slide slightly back and forth at the closure rail heels when thrown.

Okay, that said, the .015" plain old brass wire you get from K&S Special Shapes is actually hardened and is not "soft" even though it gets softer if you get it hot enough to be "strawberry" colored, which isn't going to happen using a correct soldering technique and Superior Supersafe No. 30 Gel Flux and abrading the copper with a pencil eraser and cleaning the brass oxide by swiping it with 400 sandpaper and then cleaning both with Bestine (Heptane) to remove grease.  You could easily use Phosphor Bronze wire too, which is a lot springier than brass, but will still hold a bend.  What secures the wire tightly against the top of the rail foot of the closure point toe as the wire goes through a hole in the rail foot and the underlying PCB tie is the 90 deg. bend on the bottom and the soldered joint (between wire and copper cladding) up top.  Precisely add a layer of pencil markings (graphite) to anywhere you don't want solder to travel or stick to, such as directly under the closure point toes on the copper cladding of the underlying PCB tie...mark clear out to past where the ends of the PCB throwbar tie (or ties) go under the adjacent stock rail foot.

So far...about two years...the points on my six turnouts on my UP center siding at Emory haven't worked loose.  The forces from my under-the-subroadbed Tortoises and their larger than stock throw-wires are directly left-to-right and the mechanical portion of my brain doesn't think they're ever going to "work loose" or break from normal use.

We'll see... 

What holds the closure point toes in vertical registration is that they are securely clamped to the underlying PCB part of the "throwbar" and their toes protrude over the adjacent head block tie and slide left and right on its top surface with the bottom surface of the rail foot bearing against the copper cladding on the top of the headblock ties.  The top of the second headblock tie is also a bearing surface for the bottom of the rail foot of the closure point toes.  This registers the closure point rails so they don't go DOWN, but still slide to the left and right.

The top surfaces of both of the underlying PCB tie "throwbars" also bear against the bottom surface of the rail foot of both adjacent stock rails since the tips of the PCB throwbar ties protrude under the stock rails.  This registers the closure point rails so they don't go UP, but still slide to the left and right.

In Ed's etch fret, there are longer "plates" on both headblock ties for the closure point toes to slide on...left and right...just like the prototype...so the underlying wooden ties don't wear out and to make sure the points function properly.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[ednadolski]

Great pic Bob, very clear and informative.  Thanks for sharing!   Side note, in this day of computer-generated everything, it sure is refreshing to see such a well-done hand drawing!

One question WRT the double-throwbar: do you ever notice any issue with either of the moving throwbars binding or rubbing against the stationary PCB ties?  I should think it would be OK as long as one carefully locates everything before drilling the thru-holes for the brass wire.  Do you use a shim or anything to ensure proper spacing?

One thing I found with the fret that I did not expect:  the web of the fret itself actually acts as a shim between the top of the throwbar and the bottom of each stock rail, but not between the throwbar and the bottom of the point rails.  So if the latter are snug to the throwbar, the shim introduces enough drag on the throwbar to keep the points from moving freely.  This maybe could be acceptable for manually-actuated points, but makes it hard for the Tortiose wire to move the points.  I ended up trimming away the fret web where the throwbar goes, but it was kinda lucky that I was still able to get under there at that point.   If I ever revise this drawing I will have to be sure to add a gap for that.

I think that the bent wire under the bottom of the throwbar could be a bit tricky to do with the detail fret, the reason being the presence of all the wood ties would only allow a pliers to reach from the side (even if the whole assembly was lifted from the roadbed).

With the P87 hinges, what do you use to keep the point heels in vertical alignment?   On this turnout I used two P87 hinges on each rail, which helped but is still a bit loose and leaves a bit of a bump (not too serious in this case, lucky for me).  Regular rail joiners would not of course have this problem.

Thanks,
Ed

[robert3985]

Great pic Bob, very clear and informative.  Thanks for sharing!   Side note, in this day of computer-generated everything, it sure is refreshing to see such a well-done hand drawing!

One question WRT the double-throwbar: do you ever notice any issue with either of the moving throwbars binding or rubbing against the stationary PCB ties?  I should think it would be OK as long as one carefully locates everything before drilling the thru-holes for the brass wire.  Do you use a shim or anything to ensure proper spacing?

One thing I found with the fret that I did not expect:  the web of the fret itself actually acts as a shim between the top of the throwbar and the bottom of each stock rail, but not between the throwbar and the bottom of the point rails.  So if the latter are snug to the throwbar, the shim introduces enough drag on the throwbar to keep the points from moving freely.  This maybe could be acceptable for manually-actuated points, but makes it hard for the Tortiose wire to move the points.  I ended up trimming away the fret web where the throwbar goes, but it was kinda lucky that I was still able to get under there at that point.   If I ever revise this drawing I will have to be sure to add a gap for that.

I think that the bent wire under the bottom of the throwbar could be a bit tricky to do with the detail fret, the reason being the presence of all the wood ties would only allow a pliers to reach from the side (even if the whole assembly was lifted from the roadbed).

With the P87 hinges, what do you use to keep the point heels in vertical alignment?   On this turnout I used two P87 hinges on each rail, which helped but is still a bit loose and leaves a bit of a bump (not too serious in this case, lucky for me).  Regular rail joiners would not of course have this problem.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

I can sketch the hand-drawings on the computer too since I've got a 15" Wacom Cintiq tablet, but it's quicker for me sometimes to just use pencils, pens and erasers at the drawing board.  If it was a drawing that I needed to edit or revise a lot, I'd have drawn it on the Cintiq with my old Corel Painter software.

I don't have problems with the underlying PCB throwbar ties rubbing against the stationary headblock ties since they're registered by my thicker-than-stock Tortoise throw wire, which I make from .050" piano wire which I grind down to .020" on the ends, then bend it according to Tortoise instructions.

Photo (1) Tortoise "big wire" throw wires under Emory Center Siding switches:


I've also made the Tortoise throw wires from 1/16" brass tubing with a couple of inches or so of stock Tortoise throw wire inserted into the tubing and soldered in place with an inch or so protruding from either end.  This gets bent to Tortoise specs too.

Both "bigger wire" protocols mean the fulcrum hole on the Tortoise has to be drilled out somewhat, and the bigger wire also put a lot more force on the switch up above.  This can be somewhat mitigated by using the brass tubing method and experimenting with how much stock Tortoise wire to leave sticking out. But, I like the idea of the throw wire being beefy enough to hold the switch assembly in position up above.

What I have found really can cause problems are the edges of the PCB ties, which have a "wire edge" from the cutting process.  I always take a file to the edges to smooth 'em up a bit and get rid of the "wire edge" which you can feel if you run your finger along the edges of the PCB ties. 

How I get the closure point rail heels to stay down is by soldering one end (the closure rail end) of the P87 hinges to the tops of the rail foot on both the closure rails and the stock rails, but I leave the other end open (the closure point heel end) so the closure point rail heels fit into them and the fingers of the hinge hold the closure point rails snugly against the top of an appropriately placed PCB tie.

It's easy for me to hold the P87 hinges down against the rail feet of both the closure rails and stock rails, and solder at the same time because I use my resistance soldering station with the "tweezer" handpiece which allows very precise positioning and solder placement.

It's really a pleasure to share information here about this subject as it is one of my very favorite things to do in model railroading!  Thanks Ed!!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[sp org div]

Another late party crasher....
Looks flippin sweet Ed!

Some things that I would do differently next time:

- Better gapping of the PCB ties. I used a Dremel cutoff wheel and so these gaps came out way too big. Again, this is a matter of developing the right technique. I will try to disguise them as sort of gauge plates (which can be seen on some proto turnouts not just in the point/swich areas)  (hope that is not too out-of-place looking, this is after all supposed to be a heavy mainline turnout.)

Cheers!
Ed

Your disguise technique is done well.  I use the jeweler's saw to cut gaps in the ties, just deep enough to clear the cladding but watch for tails (no fun tracing out shorts later).  Gaps dont all have to be cut down the center either...

- I gapped the frog by cutting thru the rails with a jeweler's saw.  This required chucking the whole turnout in a vice and threading the very fine blade between the two PCB ties on either end. It was heart-stoppingly delicate process, esp. with the long lengths of flextrack wagging freely as I cut.  While the results came out way better than anything I could do with a Dremel, I still would like to find a smarter way to do this.  An etched or cast frog would of course avoid the issue, but I did not make one, and nothing like that is available in the #12 size that I needed.

Cheers!
Ed

I use a dremel .009" cutoff wheel on a flex cable extension to cut the gaps in the rails...  lets you get in low with a narrow square cut.
Chris, wasn't it you who showed us where to buy those disks? (Small Parts)...  Thnx!

Jeff
http://espeeoregondivision.blogspot.com/

[ednadolski]

Completion of this turnout will be picked up under this thread:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=37285.msg446730#msg446730

Ed

[ncbqguy]

Athabasca Shops use to offer a similar product for detailing switches but I never saw someone using them.  Looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

I never used the turnout detail product but did install one of the 60 degree (?) crossing kits on a BraNchTRAK module many moons ago.   The concept worked very well- photo etched rail head  / web top and web / base that stacked and soldered made a very nice, functional Code 55 crossing.   
The same concept could be used to create frogs and switch points that would require a minimum of preparation.  The point could be etched so the point blade has the throw bar attachment pad(s) etched as an extension of the rail base.
Anyone have experience with any of the other Athabasca track kits?
Charlie Vlk

[ednadolski]

The concept worked very well- photo etched rail head  / web top and web / base that stacked and soldered ....  The same concept could be used to create frogs ....

@ncbqguy  do you mean something like this?  (Code 40 tho)   

[ncbqguy]

This is a very interesting thread.....lots of great concepts and work....
Ed, IIRC the Athabasca product was two double etched pieces to be soldered together; it looks like you have four single etches and I like your auto alignment provision.
Have you made etched points as well?
Charlie

[ednadolski]

Those are designed for a metal thickness of 0.010" so I have four layers to do a code 40 rail equivalent.   I'm presuming that the solder will add no significant thickness, tho there is only one way to find out....

These etchings won't produce a sharp point like the drawing shows. Anything less than the metal thickness is likely to be somewhat rounded off by the etching process.  (Up close, the etched metal looks sort of like partly-melted sugar: rounded over outside corners and filled-in inside corners.... which is more or less what the ferric chloride is doing anyways.)

I haven't tried to do point rails since for Code 40 it's not all that hard to make them by filing the rail, plus per above it may not be too easy to get the right combination of the needed shape and a sufficiently sturdy part.

Another option might be the CNC planed points from P:87 stores, tho my experience with any such parts (from code 40 rail up to code 125 castings) is that it almost always takes some hand-filing to 'tune' them for really smooth operation.

Ed