Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...

[SP-Wolf]

This thread is close: Definitive Atlas Code 55 Turnout Guide

The rail from that tie to the frog is the closure rail, which should not move.  On the stock turnout, this is where the pivot happens.  The PBC tie there acts as an anchor for end of the closure rail (or closure portion of the solid rail) to keep them in gauge.  If you notch the rail foot to allow better movement of the points, the notch should be located between that PBC tie and the adjacent plastic tie on the side going toward the points. You'll notice there are no plastic spikes between that PBC tie and the point, where as there are plastic spikes along the closure rail portion up to the frog.

Mark,

I must apologize to you, for not mentioning that you were the reason for me using this technique. I must say, it is an outstanding solution to Atlas's shortcomings. Had I learned of this prior to installing the turnouts on my layout -- I would have modified every one them. As it is -- I modify them if one becomes problematic. Which so far (out of roughly 60 turnouts) has been about 6 turnouts.

This in addition to properly gauging all wheel sets -- locomotive and rolling stock (When possible) is the key to reliable running.

Thanks again!!
Wolf

[Lemosteam]

Mark,

I must apologize to you, for not mentioning that you were the reason for me using this technique. I must say, it is an outstanding solution to Atlas's shortcomings. Had I learned of this prior to installing the turnouts on my layout -- I would have modified every one them. As it is -- I modify them if one becomes problematic. Which so far (out of roughly 60 turnouts) has been about 6 turnouts.

This in addition to properly gauging all wheel sets -- locomotive and rolling stock (When possible) is the key to reliable running.

Thanks again!!
Wolf

Thanks @Mark W ,

@SP-Wolf , a 10% failure rate is not that good (from Atlas' perspective...

[MichaelWinicki]

Thanks @Mark W ,

@SP-Wolf , a 10% failure rate is not that good (from Atlas' perspective...

I've dealt with a similar failure rate on my layout and no, that's not good.  I've got my own quick fix for it, but a better design would be ideal.

I'm sure Atlas has tossed it about behind closed doors... I'm sure they recognize the problem of the point losing connectivity due to the end of the point not making good contact with the small brass plate that it rests on.

[mightypurdue22]

Glad I've read through this post.  It reminds me of my frustrations with code 55 switches I had in years past.  I've been contemplating going with the code 55 track on my next layout, but the horror of dealing with the switches came flying back at me.  Tried Fast Tracks handlaid switches.  Found out fiddling with those or Atlas' just isn't my thing.  For those who have achieved well-working track with code 55, 40 or whatever, you are certainly good at your craft.  I admire it.

Dave

[diezmon]

I have a LH switch, that appears to be up to specs, but a couple of my Atlas 3 axle diesels(wheel gauges are correct) have flanges that catch the point rail and climb up, and into, the diverging route.  Odd, because the wheels are in gauge, and the point spaces appear to be correct also.

So, Tried my hand at replacing the point rails, and putting more of a gap in there. 

It's my first attempt, so a bit sloppy.   I can't seem to get the points RIGHT up to the outer rails.  There's a teeeny little gap there.  I think maybe when I filed the points, it wasn't a perfect vertical cut, so the base hits first? 

I dunno, but it still works better than stock. 

[ednadolski]

I dunno, but it still works better than stock. 

Nice work!   But to be candid, it seems to me that if you do that much, it may well be better to simply hand-build the turnout from scratch.   You've already done a good amount of the work, and it would work better and cost less in the long term (JMHO and FWIW).

(Plus as @robert3985 says, you also have the satisfaction of it being your own handiwork.) 

Ed

[diezmon]

Nice work!   But to be candid, it seems to me that if you do that much, it may well be better to simply hand-build the turnout from scratch.   You've already done a good amount of the work, and it would work better and cost less in the long term (JMHO and FWIW).

(Plus as @robert3985 says, you also have the satisfaction of it being your own handiwork.) 

Ed

baby steps... just doing the points took me an hour.   

[MichaelWinicki]

Unless your turnout is a big "-" (minus sign in a circle) I'm not seeing it.

[diezmon]

hmmm.. better?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[strummer]

Yes! 

Mark in Oregon

[robert3985]

So what would be a good, manufacturable solution to attach point rails to a throwbar?  Assume you could buy a premade turnout, either a hybrid Atlas/continuous point-closure rail turnout like Mark shows, or even just a skeleton turnout with continuous point rails.  But you want the point rail to pivot on the throwbar, both to reduce the amount of pressure on the throw rod, and also to eliminate the need to resolder a tight joint every so often, as that's a nightmare for manufacturer support (even if it is a quick fix with a soldering iron).

Over the three decades or so that I've been making and installing hand-laid turnouts in N-scale, using C70, C55 and C40 rail, the one place in their construction that has given me the most problems from a breakage aspect is where the point toes attach to the PCB throwbar.

It seems to me that modifying any RTR turnout by replacing its closure rails with a monolithic closure rails/point-toes protocol, then soldering in supportive PCB ties (particularly at what would be the point heels location) is likely to cause eventual and repeated solder joint breakage at the PCB throwbar, just like in many totally hand-laid turnouts. 

I've finally solved the problem as well as determined what is causing the problem.  Here's my experience on discovering what the problem is, and how to avoid it.  Maybe this will assist some of you in making reliable and robust switch mechanisms at the bench for your hand-laid or modified RTR turnouts.

Part of the problem of solder joint breakage at the throwbars in hand-made turnouts is the common practice of "hingeless", or "continuous" closure rails that function as both closure rails and switch points, and is especially aggravated when you solder them to a PCB tie that is placed where the point heels would be if there was a hinge at that position.

I initially thought 30+ years ago when making my first C70 turnouts (in order to fit the Railcraft C70 flex I was using on my Ntrak modules), that any solder joint breakage at the throwbar would be caused by the side-to-side stress given to the solder joints from the Tortoise stall motor underneath and the thicker actuating rods I was fabricating to make sure that the positioning of the switch was infallibly positive, so I fabricated little "Z" shaped brass tabs to solder on to the remaining inside foot of the rails at the point toes and the tops of the PCB throwbar. Turns out I was wrong.

Like many hand-layers, I was also using monolithic closure rails/points without a hinge, and soldering in a PCB tie where the hinges normally would be.

Much to my consternation, at every show I had several of the point toe/throwbar joints fail.  They were easy to fix, but fixing them caused train running to stop for about ten minutes while I waited for my iron to heat up, positioned them and re-soldered them back on to their respective PCB throwbars.

For my next modules, I used C55 and C40 trackage, and in my quest for both a reliable and prototypical looking turnout, I decided I would file "notch hinges" into the monolithic closure rail/points I was using, soldering a PCB tie where the point heels would be to allow the monolithic closure rails/points to bend sharply at this really thin part of the rail for a more realistic look but retain precise alignment and electrical continuity.

Photo (1) - Realistic looking bend in open closure point using "notch" hinges at what would be the point heels:


Photo (2) - Filed "Notch" Hinges, filed with a triangular jeweler's file down to the railweb and just a bit more:


To hopefully alleviate any more solder joint breakage at the throwbar/point toe solder joints, I thought I would bend the rail at a 90 deg. angle before filing the point toes and file away everything except the rail foot on the part that was at a 90 deg angle to the toes forming a nice, integral soldering tab, which would be soldered to the top of the PCB throwbar.  I didn't like where this placed the headblocks in a non-prototypical position in relation to the throwbar and point toes, but for reliability's sake, I was willing to put up with it.

Photo (3) - Integral Point Toe Soldering Tabs On C40 #6 Turnout:


However, again much to my frustration, the point toes were STILL breaking their solder joints on C55 turnouts two or three times a year, even with the big, integral soldering tabs!  Mysteriously, I wasn't having problems at all with my C40 #6's in the Park City Yard.

So, for years, I just put up with having to re-solder the point toes back on to the throwbars, but...the PCB throwbars started delaminating because of the heat of constant re-soldering, and replacing them was a B!TCH let me tell you! 

If I got PCB throwbar delamination during a show, it really would NOT be practical to replace it because it would tie up running trains on one mainline for an hour or more, I'd have to always make sure I brought the proper tools along to fabricate and install the little bugger and it is a two-man operation, involving removing the Tortoise and then repositioning it with its actuating rod barely sticking up through the hole in the center of the PCB throwbar....a REAL PITA! So when it happened, I'd just spike the switch for mainline running.

I decided I'd give the whole problem some thought to see just what the Hell the problem was with my C55 turnouts that wasn't affecting my C40 turnouts even though their construction was exactly the same.

Welllll...I finally noticed that on my C40 turnouts, the open point at the switch always deformed just a bit...forming a long, barely discernible "S" curve, but then regaining its straightness when closed, with the opposite point rail now taking on that long "S" shape.  Hmmmmm...my C55 turnouts didn't do this.

Photo (4) - C40 #6 Turnout Showing Relation of Soldered Point Toes to Throwbar/Notch Hinges and the "S" Curve the Open Point Rail Forms:


I knew that my two ME turnouts had firmly soldered point toes at the throwbar, so I carefully observed the workings of a salvaged third ME switch on my workbench one night when I didn't have anything else to do.  I knew that sometimes the point heels would slip out of the half-rail joiner hinges, and that this piece was monolithic.  I also noticed that when the switch was thrown, the open point rail's heel at the hinge would slip towards the throwbar, forming a gap.  When thrown the other way, it closed the gap and the opposite point rail now had the gap at the hinge...meaning that the hinge wasn't just a "hinge", it allowed the point rails to slip back and forth when the switch was thrown in the directions of the throwbar and frog point.

After a bit, the old brain started kicking in, and I could see that with my methodology of soldered point toes and non-sliding monolithic notch hinges, I had made a solid parallelogram with two rails and two PCB ties soldered to their ends.  When the switch was thrown, there was enough torque generated to kink the slim, filed C40 point rails into an "S" shape, which alleviated the torque somewhat on the solder joints at the point toes/throwbar, but my code 55 rails were much too thick and rigid to form into a discernible "S" shape, leaving tremendous torque to eventually break the solder joints at the soldering tab/throwbar! 

FINALLY!  I now knew how to get rid of this sometimes infernal problem either by making "slip-hinges" at the point rail heels, or making a sturdy hinge at the point rail toes/throwbar position....or maybe BOTH just to be safe!

AND, since I was now going to have a more prototypical hinge at the point rail heels, maybe I'd see if I could design a hinge system that was both durable and more realistic looking too.

I went to Andy Reichert's Proto87 Stores website ( http://www.proto87.com/N_scale_turnouts_and_track.html ) because I both owned and was aware of several of his products, including a supposedly more realistic looking throwbar attachment fret which also included point heel hinges.  Unfortunatly, Andy's throwbar protocol doesn't work for me, but his point heel hinges looked extremely promising.

Here's a nicer version of the drawing I initially came up with for a robust, fairly easy to make, throwbar protocol that should totally cure the N-scale point toes/throwbar breakage problem...

Photo (5) - My Drawing for A Semi-realistic Looking, Robust, Hinged N-scale Throwbar w/Instructions:


These have to made on the bench along with the turnouts because you need to have access to the bottom of the switch, so retrofitting existing turnouts isn't practical without removing them.

Photo (6) - Second Generation Throwbar Hinges at the Bench From the Top:


Photo (7) - Second Generation Throwbar Hinges at the Bench From the Bottom:


Photo (8 ) - Equally Important Proto87 Stores "Point Hinges":


From a purely functional standpoint, you could use shortened, tight rail joiners such as Micro Engineering's, soldering them only to the ends of the closure rails, allowing the point heels to slide in them when the switch is thrown, just like ME's #6 turnout.

So, how do the new switches function?  I've had six turnouts equipped with this protocol at Emory Siding since 2015, and so far they work flawlessly and totally reliably.  Three #8's, two #4 wyes, and a curved turnout all for both ends of Emory Center Siding east of Echo Curve on my layout.

Photo (9) - Emory Center Siding East End:


I'm of the opinion that turnouts do NOT need both a hinged throwbar and slip-hinges at the point heels.  If you want monolithic, hingeless closure rails/point toes for smoothness and electrical continuity with a PCB tie soldered in at what would be the point heels, then for truly worry-free, reliable operation you'll need a hinged throwbar...the same if you go for "notch" hinges at the point heels.  You might get away with no hinged throwbar if you eliminate the point heels PCB tie, and let your closure rails pivot clear back at the frog or a couple of ties away from it...maybe...but that might be problematic for a modified RTR turnout due to all the cast-on stuff on the ties.  On the other hand, if you like the look of the sharp bend at the point heels as well as the Proto87 Stores "Point Hinges", then you don't need a hinged throwbar as long as the point heels can slide back and forth in the direction of train travel.

My next batch of 17 turnouts will be at Devils Slide and the Ideal Concrete Plant siding and spur, and I am seriously considering still using Proto87 Store's "Point Hinges" at the point heels, still using .015" wire to simulate the throw rods, still drilling the holes in the point toes rail foot and PCB throwbars, and inserting the .015" wire, but soldering both the wire and the foot of the rails at the point toes to the top of the PCB throwbar, and trimming the wire flush with the bottom of the PCB throwbar.  No wire clamp needs to be formed since the foot of the rail at the point toes is held in place by my silver-bearing solder since I'm not making a hinged throwbar now.  This should make is more simple, and save a bit of time, because with slip hinges at the point heels, I don't need hinged throwbars from a reliability/durability standpoint and I have not created a "rigid parallelogram" to torque the Hell out of my solder joints at the throwbar.

We'll see.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[DKS]

In my quest for more realistic/more reliable points, I took a slightly different approach from Robert, although it may not lend itself to large layouts requring many turnouts. It also relied on the fact that I laid the turnouts at the workbench on slabs of thick styrene, with PC board ties bonded to it with CA.

I mounted the points on the pivot end to a steel wire soldered into the point rail. The rod passed through a hole in the tie, and below, it was bent at 90 degrees. The other end of the wire was anchored such that the points were sprung together. At the moving end of the points, I soldered tabs to them that had holes for the throw rod. The throw rod had an insulating section that moved the points. Specifically:



I didn't make dozens of them, but the several I did make with Code 40 rail were quite reliable.

The pivot rods were anchored by simply melting the end of the wire into the turnout base with a soldering iron, after the appropriate amount of tortional force was applied to the point:



Note the electrical wires soldered to the pivot wires: these provided reliable power to the freely-pivoting points.

Throw rod connection:



I couldn't possibly do this sort of work today, but assuming I could, this is how I'd do it, adding a second set of (dummy) throw bar connections for added realism.
 

[diezmon]

dang, this is impressive work guys..  I may start trying my hand at hand-laying the entire turnout.  I've been thinking about it for a while.

Funny, as I was updating my atlas turnout, i did wonder about the tension on the points, with the lack of hinging.   I think I'll try the rail-joiner hinge method next time.

@robert3985, I noticed you don't notch your outer rails for the points.  less work, obviously, and no issues with flanges riding up onto the point? 

 

[strummer]

dang, this is impressive work guys..   

...+1...

Fellows working in larger scales should look at this stuff; I'm sure they'd be impressed!

Mark in Oregon

[sschnabl]

I have been building my C55 turnouts using a couple of Fast Tracks jigs.  I have decided to go with the solid closure rails instead of hinged ones.  With the Fast Tracks jigs, the S tie is further back than the H tie.  In your experience, do you think the solder joints will fail over time?  The S tie is closer to the frog than the H tie.  I have built about 60 of these, but have yet to install them on my new layout.

Thanks,

Scott