Track spikes.

[central.vermont]

Hey gang,
I'm in the process of hand laying N scale track and am looking for some spikes that are the smallest you can use. I have found on Micro Mark they have micro spikes that are 3/16" long and am wondering how big the head of the spike is. Has anyone used these or found something better?

Jon

[railnerd]

Microengineering 30-108 Micro Spikes are probably what you want.  They are also coincidentally 3/16" long.

-Dave

[Missaberoad]

http://www.proto87.com/product1908.html

Proto-87 makes the smallest spikes I've found... I think thats what @ednadolski has used for some of his handlaying...

They have 4 6 differnt sizes/lengths

[tom mann]

The Micro Engineering head is huge and flat and shaped nothing like a real spike head.  Years ago, I used one and only one to realize that "it's not gonna work for me":

[central.vermont]

http://www.proto87.com/product1908.html

Proto-87 makes the smallest spikes I've found... I think thats what @ednadolski has used for some of his handlaying...

They have 4 differnt sizes/lengths

Thanks for the info Ryan. Hopefully @ednadolski will put in some advice here. I am thinking the proto stuff will probably be what I want just not sure which size would be best with code 55.

Jon

[central.vermont]

The Micro Engineering head is huge and flat and shaped nothing like a real spike head.  Years ago, I used one and only one to realize that "it's not gonna work for me":

Damn that things BIG!!!! That's just the kind of info I needed Tom. 

Thanks! Jon

[ednadolski]

The smallest spikes I have found are the scale HO P:87 spikes from http://www.proto87.com.   They are small enough to use with code 40 rail:



In that pic only about every 5th-6th tie is actually spiked, so you don't have to do every tie if you don't want to.   The spikes come in several lengths.  The shortest is the actual HO scale length, which is ok for cosmetic use but are not long enough to go thru the tie, so they are not great for actually holding the rail in place or in gauge.  I also found them to be rather hard to handle because of the size (you need good light, magnifiers, and a really good tweezers - the average hobby tweezers are a recipe for frustration).  The longer lengths are a lot easier to handle and will hold the rail in place, provided you use a good roadbed (cork will not do the trick).  Also, don't use a hard yellow glue for the ties, since that makes it more difficult to drive in the spikes.  (Full disclosure - I have not built any significant lengths of track like this, just some sample track.)

I've also used the spikes cosmetically, with the rail soldered to PCB ties to hold it in place in a more conventional way.   Here is a pic where I used the spikes to detail a hand-built turnout.   This is with code 55 rail and tie plates that I had etched up with the holes large enough to accept the spikes:



One thing to keep in mind is that these are very small parts.  When painted to match the rail, they are will be essentially invisible at arms length.  They are best installed in places where you have good light and close viewing distances.

Ed

[ednadolski]

The Micro Engineering head is huge and flat and shaped nothing like a real spike head.  Years ago, I used one and only one to realize that "it's not gonna work for me":

@tom mann, just wondering if that is that the 'micro' or the 'small' ME spike?   IIRC the micro looks more like a piece of bent music wire (but still is too large for N scale).

Ed

[robert3985]

Hey gang,
I'm in the process of hand laying N scale track and am looking for some spikes that are the smallest you can use. I have found on Micro Mark they have micro spikes that are 3/16" long and am wondering how big the head of the spike is. Has anyone used these or found something better?

Jon

Jon ( @central.vermont  ), Although spiking N-scale hand-laid track at first sounds like a good idea because it's commonly done that way in the larger scales, truth is, even the ultra-small etched HO scale spikes that Proto87 Stores offers are too big, too expensive, too time-consuming and, most importantly too imprecise to use for lots of N-scale hand-laid trackage.

What I decided to do for my N-scale, code 40 trackage on my Park City Branch and industrial sidings and spurs was to experiment with two different methods: (1) The Goodyear Pliobond method - This is where you apply Goodyear Pliobond to the bottoms of your rails, hold them in place with three-point metal track gauges, then apply heat with a soldering iron to the top of the rails, which causes the Pliobond to stink and adhere to wooden ties previously glued down, sanded and stained...(2) The PC Board method - This is where you solder your rails to PC Board ties spaced every fifth tie between wooden ties previously glued down with an empty space every fifth tie to glue a PCB tie into...then the wooden ties are carefully sanded down (because they're thicker than the PCB material the PCB ties are made of) until the sanding block just kisses the tops of the glued down PCB ties.

After an experimentation period, I decided that I would use the PCB tie method because I was building my trackwork on portable layout sections, and even though the Pliobond seemed to hold things down well, it was messy, difficult to apply evenly on the bottom of the rails, and would visibly "goop out" if applied too thickly when heat was applied with the soldering iron...and, I didn't know how long it would retain its adhesive qualities after being heated up and abused by this method.

The PCB method has several advantages, the main advantage being that the rails are stuck down much more permanently, but can be easily de-soldered if that need arises and soldered joints (if the proper non-acidic flux is used) will virtually last forever.

I liked the PCB method over spiking because of the appearance.  I was not about to spike every tie with a minimum of four spikes, which meant I would be spiking every fifth tie.  When I sighted down the track, the spikeheads were clearly visible, and were obviously not on every tie, which gave the trackwork an obviously "model" look.  The PCB method totally eliminated any spikeheads, and the absence of them does not attract the eye to that detail at all.  Even in close-up photos, the PCB track, without tie plates or spikes, looks much more realistic than having the track spiked every fifth tie.

Being a detail-oriented N-scale modeler, I still would like to experiment with adding tie plates to my hand-laid trackage, and Proto87 Stores makes them for N-scale code 40 rail, but after ordering a batch of them, their actual size (about the size of a flake of dandruff) has put me off from using them, both from a time-consuming aspect, AND a they-may-just-be-too-damned-small-to-see aspect.  So, the jury is out for me, and like Ed Nadolski, I believe that I may end up etching a sheet of them that is a bit thicker than the Proto87 Stores versions and closer to actual prototype dimensions.

Photo (1) - Here's a photo of my code 40 Park City Branch trackage, painted, ballasted and weathered with a superdetailed brass Big Boy sitting on top of it:


Photo (2) - Here's another view in the hand-laid code 40 Park City Yard, adjacent to the not-yet-ballasted Railcraft code 55 flex-tracked Echo Yard in the background.  I love the look of the wood grain on the wooden ties:


As Ed ( @ednadolski  ) writes, even if you decide to use spikes, you don't want to spike every tie.  Frankly, I don't miss 'em when looking at, or photographing engines or rolling stock in ultra-closeups on my layout.

Hope this assists you...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[central.vermont]

Well I guess I should have been a little more informative as too what I am doing. I'm not planning on hand laying the track just c55 #7 switches. I have to build 27 switches for my Central Vermont New London yard. This yard will be a focal point of the layout when you first see it so I want to make this look good. The track will be Atlas c55 track and the switches I am going to build using the fast track jig for this. I just want to make the switches look a little less plain by using spikes not so much too hold the track but to make it more realistic looking. Which this brings me to another question.
Will the proto87 switch details work with c55 rail?

Ed,
That's one fine looking switch you did.   Also I read up some on the spikes and was thinking on settling on the Longer HO spikes and you confirmed that for me so thank you for this. Just want to get my ducks in a row before I go and order materials that may or may not work for me. 

Bob,
Wow  that's some fine looking trackage, hope mine comes close at-least  Who's wooden ties did you use? I know Fast trak sells some and Proto87 does, which would be a better match to the Atlas c55?

Thanks for this help guys it's been very helpful so far.
Jon

[ednadolski]

Will the proto87 switch details work with c55 rail?

I have not tried these myself nor have I heard about anyone using them.  I do not know whether they were specifically designed for code 40 or 55 rail.   I have used the Code 40 regular tieplates, which you can see in the first pic that I posted.  Because they are so small, I have found them very hard to pick up and to align consistently from one tie to the next [1].  Also I found that painting them makes them essentially invisible without magnification.  The hook plates on the switch detail fret are even smaller than the regular Code 40 tieplates,  and I also had some concern about how well the slide plates would stay in place underneath moving points.

While I don't mean for this to come across as discouraging, I want to be clear that these kinds of parts come with a 'some assembly required' disclaimer.  Best bet is to get a set or two to try out for yourself.  If you contact Andy at p:87 Stores, he might have some suggestions for how to install these kinds of parts.

Ed

[1] That was one key reason that led me to the self-aligning fret approach: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=34762.msg404138#msg404138

[robert3985]

Well I guess I should have been a little more informative as too what I am doing. I'm not planning on hand laying the track just c55 #7 switches. I have to build 27 switches for my Central Vermont New London yard. This yard will be a focal point of the layout when you first see it so I want to make this look good. The track will be Atlas c55 track and the switches I am going to build using the fast track jig for this. I just want to make the switches look a little less plain by using spikes not so much too hold the track but to make it more realistic looking. Which this brings me to another question.
Will the proto87 switch details work with c55 rail?

Ed,
That's one fine looking switch you did.   Also I read up some on the spikes and was thinking on settling on the Longer HO spikes and you confirmed that for me so thank you for this. Just want to get my ducks in a row before I go and order materials that may or may not work for me. 

Bob,
Wow  that's some fine looking trackage, hope mine comes close at-least  Who's wooden ties did you use? I know Fast trak sells some and Proto87 does, which would be a better match to the Atlas c55?

Thanks for this help guys it's been very helpful so far.
Jon

Jon, unfortunately the switch detail fret doesn't work as designed with code 55 rail.  The railfoot on code 55 is wider than on code 40.  However, you CAN use the parts if you cut them at the location that would be under the railfoot, and insert them from either side of the rail. 

I've talked with Andy at Proto87 Stores about it, since the vast majority of hand-laid N-scale turnouts are made using code 55 rail, but...he hasn't listened to me.  It would certainly have the potential to increase his N-scale business if he redrew the artwork to make these parts compatible with code 55 rail.  Ah well....  Like Ed, I'm gonna have some etched to my specifications, a bit thicker and wider to fit under C55 rail, but without being tied together as is under his fabulous turnout models!

As Ed has stated, the Proto87 Stores parts are difficult enough to manipulate as they are, and cutting them so they'd work with code 55 rail would at least double your work, your time and your frustration...after all, after you cut them in half they're twice as small, and then you have to align them on either side of the rail.

As to your choice of flextrack brand.  You seem to be detail oriented, so is there a reason you choose to use Atlas C55 rather than Micro Engineering (ME) C55 flex? Although ME downgraded itself the last time it made new injection molds with bigger spikehead details, they are still about half as tall and much more prototypical appearing than the grossly oversized nubs that Atlas molds into their plastic ties.  If you're thinking about adding turnout super-detailing, then it's ironic you decided to go with Atlas C55 since ME C55 looks much more "real".

Here's a photo comparing new ME C55 with Atlas C55 graphically showing the difference in the shape and size of their "spikehead" detailing...

Photo (1) - Side by side comparo of Atlas C55 (left) and "new" ME C55 (right).  Notice also that the Atlas nubs are centered, as opposed to ME's being prototypically offset:


Real railroads use ties of varying lengths, widths, heights and spacing for different tasks.  For non-turnout use, they usually group these "tasks" into at least four groups: (1) Heavily trafficked, (2) Medium trafficked, (3) Lightly trafficked, and (4) Bridge.  Mainline trackage is usually considered heavily trafficked, with sidings and spurs being mostly medium trafficked trackage as well as branchlines.  Lightly trafficked trackage is usually reserved for certain industries which will only see a switcher and a few cars every once in a while.

The prototype also uses different weights of rails for each type of "task" their track is purposed for, but in N-scale, we are limited to only two sizes of rail that come even close to prototype heights...code 55 and code 40.  Code 55 is too tall for any actual scaled-down rail ever used by any major railroad in the US, and code 40 (actually code 44) is just right for heavily trafficked mainlines today.  HOWEVER, if we want to illustrate a noticeable difference in rail size between our mainlines and less heavily trafficked trackage, it's logical to use the oversize code 55 for mainlines and code 40 for everything else...and besides, those are our only choices for close to scaled-down rail sizes.

Since there are only two manufacturers who come close to attempting to make realistic North American rail products (Atlas and ME) you would think they'd have done a bit of research as to the size and spacing of the ties on their flextrack, but they evidently haven't as both manufacturers have incorporated some basic flaws into their code 55 wooden-tied flextrack.  Atlas C55 has more even and square ties, but they are too short for heavily trafficked trackage, but spaced just right for heavily trafficked trackage.  ME C55 is just the opposite, with ties that are the right length for heavily trafficked trackage, but with the ties spaced just right for medium trafficked trackage.

So, what do ya do?

I initially thought I'd use Atlas C55 flex for mainline trackage and ME C55 for medium duty spurs and sidings since to my eyes, the tie spacing is more glaringly evident than the tie length.  However, after taking a few close-up shots of laid Atlas C55 flex, the grossly oversized nubbins (spikehead) failed the photographic test, and I decided to not use it for anything on my layout, and go with ME C55 for heavily trafficked mainlines, ME C40 for medium trafficked spurs and sidings and hand-laid C55 on PCB ties for the lightly trafficked trackage, varying the tie spacing to really set the light-duty trackage apart from the heavy and medium trackage.

This has worked well for me, although I still wish that somebody would decide to invest in N-scale "scale" North American prototype trackage and draw real 1:160th rail rather than giving us HO scale small rail.

As a workable compromise on your hand-laid C55 turnouts, I would suggest that you try just adding cut tieplates to the outside of your rails, and nut & bolt details to your frogs and switch points.  If you want to afford it, I am using Proto87 Stores point heel hinges and the tri-planed points on every turnout I make nowadays, but the tri-planed points alone are nearly ten bucks.  I haven't figured out how to make them myself yet, but they add both reliability and realism to N-scale turnouts.

For wooden ties, I have several thousand ME stained wooden ties that I bought years ago, both turnouts length and track length, but lately, I've been using Styrene tie-sized stock for my turnouts.  I scrape the top edges with a fine Zona saw, which gives it wood-grain and insert them between my structural PCB ties on my hand-laid turnouts.  I like it, and frankly, they are just cosmetic anyway since I use a lot more PCB switch ties than is normally called for since my switches are in a portable, modular/sectional world and get moved to show locations several times a year.

Photo (2) - Latest hand-laid turnouts on my Emory Center Siding LDE, using Proto87 Stores point heel hinges, tri-planed points, Styrene switch ties and my own throw-bar design:


Since the mainline is in the foreground for this LDE, I'm gonna add cut switch tieplates to the outside of the rails on these turnouts (six of 'em) as well as the etched N&B detail strips to the frogs, guardrails and switch points.  This experiment will tell me if the added effort and time are worth it after I paint, ballast and weather the trackage.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

Jon, I got to thinking that one of the things I do when building yard ladders or monolithic turnout combinations is insert ME plastic ties where they are called for in the turnout group.  This looks a LOT better than trying to insert them under the rails after the turnouts are down on the roadbed since ya gotta cut the spikeheads off.  Why not think ahead and insert them on the rails as you're constructing your monolithic turnout groupings? Of course, I'm thinking that you'll be constructing your yard ladders in monolithic groups and maybe you're not...but it's definitely got its advantages and is something to think about before you get started making your #7's! 

Photo (1) - Here's a shot of turnouts being constructed on my bench over a paper template:


Photo (2) - A closer shot.  Plastic ties can be slid away from joints you're gonna solder, then slid back in place once the joint has cooled down:


I do this too when soldering pieces of flex together, cutting ME railjoiners into at least two pieces, cutting off the "lip" so they're an RCH shorter than the distance between ties.  I cut the rails so they meet between that space, slide the ties back, slip the cut-down rail joiner on (after de-burring the cut rail ends and chamfering the sharp corners of the rail feet), center up the rail joiner, apply flux and solder the rail joiners in.  After the joints have cooled and I've eyeballed the curve or straightness of the rails and I'm satisfied, I slide the ties back into place and the joint virtually disappears.

Photo (3) - Here's a couple of pieces of old Railcraft C55 joined with my method after being painted:


HOWEVER, since now I'm soldering a feeder to every, single piece of rail, I'm gonna do the rail-joinerless method on my next 12' LDE of Wilhemina Pass and Devil's Slide which is too complicated for me to 'splain this late at night! 

Time to hit the hay....

Goodnight!
Bob Gilmore

[tom mann]

@tom mann, just wondering if that is that the 'micro' or the 'small' ME spike?   IIRC the micro looks more like a piece of bent music wire (but still is too large for N scale).

Ed

It was the smallest available at the time, but it looks like the Micro Spikes are indeed smaller.  But as you say still too big.

My experiments really made me appreciate ME code 55, and if the tooling used for code 40 was better, that.

[svedblen]

Just for comparison. Here is some ME code 55 rail, ME code 40 rail, a ME small (1/4") spike and a fret of Proto:87 N scale tie plates. The smaller holes are meant to be for the spikes