Concrete Tie strip for N Scale and Code 40 Rail

[ednadolski]

@narrowminded, @robert3985  have you thought about how to do frog construction for turnout tie strips?    I presume you can't solder the frog in place on the tie bed, so it will have to be done as a separate sub-assembly and then installed onto the strip.

I guess the rail for the frog and guard+stock rails will need to all be epoxied into place within the rail guides on the strip, and that will do the job of holding everything in place and in gauge.

Ed

[narrowminded]

@narrowminded, @robert3985  have you thought about how to do frog construction for turnout tie strips?    I presume you can't solder the frog in place on the tie bed, so it will have to be done as a separate sub-assembly and then installed onto the strip.

Much like any hand laid turnout, they will be prepped from standard rail and then soldered as a sub-assembly utilizing a precise alignment fixture.  Because I will be making more than a few of these, instead of filing to prep I will be making a machine fixture, machining those parts for precision and for convenience.  If any real volume occurs then they may get CNC machined as a complete frog from Nickel Silver plate but that will only result down the road, following a natural course based on volume to justify that. 

At this point I am planning on furnishing these as a RTR assembly.  That is for two reasons.  One, it is a chance to inspect everything about all of the pieces, in place, as they will be used.  Two, produced in some quantity, not necessarily real high, the parts can be fixtured for good, repeat accuracy and then the final assembly can be fixtured for relatively easy, accurate, assembly not requiring a big labor charge.  The biggest costs will be in all of the individual component preps which, once completed, should be pretty easy to assemble.  IF it seems that the assembly without using assembly fixtures is pretty straightforward with no experience I may consider a kit at some point but I'd like to get some history before to promise that.  But again, if it works simply enough to be offered as an easy to assemble kit, the cost savings kit vs: assembled (with fixtures and experience) will not be too great which comes back to just furnishing assembled.  At least that's the present thought pending some actual production experience.

I guess the rail for the frog and guard+stock rails will need to all be epoxied into place within the rail guides on the strip, and that will do the job of holding everything in place and in gauge.

I haven't finalized that yet but I doubt I will use epoxy.  I may use CA for the frog and small parts like guard rails with Pliobond for the stock rails but that's still up in the air pending actual testing and assembly experience.  It may be all Pliobond and there's still a small possibility, very small, that a PC tie will be inserted in the bed, used especially for convenience of wiring.  That is a small possibility as I think I have a decent, cost effective, but still robust way of doing that and really don't want to give up the theme of prototypical tie plates on all ties.

[narrowminded]

One thing that has surfaced as I consider Code 55 to Code 40 transition pieces, most likely to be used when coming off a main utilizing Code 55 turnouts, is the spiking detail.  There are more spikes utilized in turnouts, fewer empty holes, per pattern #4 on the UP spec sheet @robert3985 furnished above, and that procedure requires that pattern be continued at least the next 40' of track in any direction away from the turnout.  The difference is double gauge spikes on the outside of the rail instead of a single spike.  Therefore the transition pieces will get these extra spikes.

Because of this, I may also make a turnout extension piece even for Code 40 turnouts that has the extra spikes.  That would be the only difference between the regular branch or siding track and the turnout extension piece, the extra spikes.  Not necessary functionally different and maybe a little over the top but what the heck, might as well do it if we've gone this far.  Cost wouldn't be different.

[narrowminded]

@ednadolski  Would you still be using wooden turnout ties in your concrete tie installations?  I'm guessing a transition piece from Code 55 to Code 40 concrete track might still be needed.  It would start with two wooden ties for the code 55 and the balance would be concrete.

[ednadolski]

Much like any hand laid turnout, they will be prepped from standard rail and then soldered as a sub-assembly utilizing a precise alignment fixture.  Because I will be making more than a few of these, instead of filing to prep I will be making a machine fixture, machining those parts for precision and for convenience.

That sounds rather like what FastTracks already offers, or have I misunderstood?

Perhaps another option is to use a frog built up from layers of etched metal?  e.g. 4 layers of 0.010" NS, or 5 layers of 0.008" NS, etc., whatever makes sense for the desired dimensions.    I think that there are some P:87 parts like that, tho I don't know the availability.

At this point I am planning on furnishing these as a RTR assembly.

I believe P:87 stores offers that as an option for HO and P:87 turnouts.  Some of those are built on the CVMW turnout strips.  I have no idea of the sales volume, tho IIRC the cost for a hand-assembled was on the order of 2x - 3x an OTS commercial HO turnout like an M.E. #6.

I may consider a kit at some point but I'd like to get some history before to promise that.

There will always be a certain number of types  who will want kits (to save some $$ and they don't mind doing the work themselves).

... I doubt I will use epoxy.  I may use CA for the frog and small parts like guard rails with Pliobond for the stock rails but that's still up in the air pending actual testing and assembly experience.

FWIW I used epoxy to install the frog and guard rails to upgrade an RTR HO turnout to P:87.  It's held up fine, and I think it's probably better than Pliobond as I wouldn't want any dimensional flexibility in that area of the turnout.

I don't think I could pull the epoxied parts apart if I tried.   I might be an interesting experiment to leave them in an unheated/uncooled garage for a full season or two and see how they hold up to the abuse

@ednadolski  Would you still be using wooden turnout ties in your concrete tie installations?

Yes, there aren't yet many proto installations w/concrete turnout ties, at least in what I'm modeling. I'm really interested in finding ways to eliminate any visible PCB ties.

My plans are all vaporware at this point, but after this latest crop of pics my goal would be to go 100% Code 40.  It's a perception but next to the C40 the C55 rail is looking more & more coarse to my eye every time I look at it  (esp. that doggone shiny rail head width  ). Kinda like HO scale going back to Atlas C100 after seeing M.E. C83.  I would rather trade off the visual contrast between the C55/C40 rail sizes in order to get the finescale look for mainline track, and I can still use other visual cues like tie spacing, relative elevation, ballast size, fishplates, and weathering to convey the distinction between mainline and branch line.  So I've started to look at updating my photo-etch turnout frets to see what they would be like with C40 rail.

I usually prefer the look of all-wood ties over plastics, but I've also learned for N scale that when plastic ties are well painted/textured/weathered then they can be quite hard to distinguish from actual wood, even in close-up pics.

Ed

[narrowminded]

That sounds rather like what FastTracks already offers, or have I misunderstood?

No, that's basically the method.  I will be making my own fixtures because I will have some that are curved and on all I will be making them to precise lengths as well as angles but if a person had the FastTracks fixture for an angle that they needed I'm sure it could be used. 

Perhaps another option is to use a frog built up from layers of etched metal?  e.g. 4 layers of 0.010" NS, or 5 layers of 0.008" NS, etc., whatever makes sense for the desired dimensions.    I think that there are some P:87 parts like that, tho I don't know the availability.

For production I can't imagine building up frogs from plates has any real benefit unless the tools to file and fit accurately aren't owned, aren't used.   I'm also not seeing any benefit in function or in appearance.  Am I missing something?   Maybe I should take a look at their site.

I believe P:87 stores offers that as an option for HO and P:87 turnouts.  Some of those are built on the CVMW turnout strips.  I have no idea of the sales volume, tho IIRC the cost for a hand-assembled was on the order of 2x - 3x an OTS commercial HO turnout like an M.E. #6.

I really don't have a price yet because so much is new but if everything goes somewhat as planned they shouldn't be too bad.  They will likely be more than the lower cost turnouts with cast components and questionable power routing but then again, they should look excellent and also run flawlessly right out of the box.    That's part of what this effort is all about.

There will always be a certain number of types  who will want kits (to save some $$ and they don't mind doing the work themselves).

Well, none of it is etched in stone yet and even if RTR becomes the standard offering, for some, maybe some exceptions could be made.   But I do feel it would be best to run the first ones for general consumption, in house, to make sure all works well.  The worst thing that could happen would be to have some kind of issue surface that could be easily fixed but winds up unnecessarily harming the reputation of the product.

FWIW I used epoxy to install the frog and guard rails to upgrade an RTR HO turnout to P:87.  It's held up fine, and I think it's probably better than Pliobond as I wouldn't want any dimensional flexibility in that area of the turnout.

I don't think I could pull the epoxied parts apart if I tried.   I might be an interesting experiment to leave them in an unheated/uncooled garage for a full season or two and see how they hold up to the abuse

I don't doubt epoxy would work well but am a little concerned about working neatly and especially, efficiently with it.  If it was found to be necessary I'm sure it could be worked out but I think that between CA and Pliobond the needed results can be accomplished.  But this is also why I need to proceed with finalizing the design, tooling, and testing.  If kits were offered I guess a user could use whatever glue they wanted.


You might try your freezer if you wanted to test that joint.  If there was going to be a problem it would likely show up early, one to just a few cycles in and out.  Are the bonded parts the same material?  If so, they grow together.  It's the different materials with different expansion rates where the biggest potential for trouble lies.  And then, especially when there is a larger dimensioned part involved where the difference in growthl becomes pretty large.  A small part may not have the issue because the dimension change is so small and can be handled by the materials.  That's why I may use CA on something like a frog but am reluctant to use it over several feet of metal rail bonded to plastic.  BTW, quick tests show this resin has similar expansion rates to those of our typical modelling plastics.

Yes, there aren't yet many proto installations w/concrete turnout ties, at least in what I'm modeling. I'm really interested in finding ways to eliminate any visible PCB ties.

That's the goal with what I'm doing.

My plans are all vaporware at this point, but after this latest crop of pics my goal would be to go 100% Code 40.  It's a perception but next to the C40 the C55 rail is looking more & more coarse to my eye every time I look at it  (esp. that doggone shiny rail head width  ). Kinda like HO scale going back to Atlas C100 after seeing M.E. C83.  I would rather trade off the visual contrast between the C55/C40 rail sizes in order to get the finescale look for mainline track, and I can still use other visual cues like tie spacing, relative elevation, ballast size, fishplates, and weathering to convey the distinction between mainline and branch line.  So I've started to look at updating my photo-etch turnout frets to see what they would be like with C40 rail.

I wasn't sure if a mainline tie should be made for Code 40 but reading this and knowing how close the scale dimensions are, maybe it should.  It certainly could be done and at little extra effort at this point.  What say the masses?

I usually prefer the look of all-wood ties over plastics, but I've also learned for N scale that when plastic ties are well painted/textured/weathered then they can be quite hard to distinguish from actual wood, even in close-up pics.

That's what I love about the work some of you guys do.  It's truly amazing!

[Missaberoad]

One thought to keep in mind is that for a big chunk of the 20th century 115lb rail was pretty heavy mainline steel.
I know for my prototypes of choice code 40 is "mainline" rail. 

[ednadolski]

For production I can't imagine building up frogs from plates has any real benefit unless the tools to file and fit accurately aren't owned, aren't used.   I'm also not seeing any benefit in function or in appearance.  Am I missing something?   Maybe I should take a look at their site.

Etched parts if done well can have in inherent precision that is hard to achieve mechanically.  But be forewarned, that site is a mess - very hard to find anything that you are interested in. (Hard to believe, but it used to be even worse  ).   If you're curious, here are a few links:

http://www.proto87.com/N_scale_turnouts_and_track.html
http://www.proto87.com/Making_frogs_using_clamps_help.html
http://www.proto87.com/Making_frogs_using_the_frog_fixture_help.html

Ed

[narrowminded]

One thought to keep in mind is that for a big chunk of the 20th century 115lb rail was pretty heavy mainline steel.
I know for my prototypes of choice code 40 is "mainline" rail. 

What seems to be developing is a desire for Code 40 Mainline tie for some and a Code 55 Mainline tie for others.  The Code 55 offering is solely to make a clear, visible difference between main and branch track with the larger rail size in addition to the tie spacing, maintaining the prototypical tie and tie plate detail not available on any of the flex track offerings.  

To that end, for Code 40 mainline track: Tie spacing at 20" and tie dimensions of 9" x 7" x 9' (108").  Branch and siding are 8" x 7" x 8.5' at 22" or 24" spacing.  Agreed?  This is prototypical according to RTA specs and will also allow for matching rail heights on Code 40 installations when transitioning to branch or siding track.  Code 55 Mainline will be the same tie dimensions but will require a transition piece (or shimming standard ties) to adjust the height when transitioning to Code 40.

Note: It seems that tie spacing in turnouts is 19.5".  That will be further investigated.

[amato1969]

To that end, for Code 40 mainline track: Tie spacing at 20" and tie dimensions of 9" x 7" x 9' (108").  Branch and siding are 8" x 7" x 8.5' at 22" or 24" spacing.  Agreed?

Agreed; these spacings match the Fast Tracks tie jigs/racks.  Personally, starting a new branch/switching layout, the branch and siding products are of interest to me.

[wazzou]

To that end, for Code 40 mainline track: Tie spacing at 20" and tie dimensions of 9" x 7" x 9' (108").  Branch and siding are 8" x 7" x 8.5' at 22" or 24" spacing.  Agreed?  This is prototypical according to RTA specs and will also allow for matching rail heights on Code 40 installations when transitioning to branch or siding track. 

I've sold an awful lot of ties in my career and can say with some certainty that the UP was one of the only roads I can recall that standardized 9' long ties.
Most other Class I's were 8'6" and the SP and Canadian Class I's actually used a lot of 8' ties.

[narrowminded]

I've sold an awful lot of ties in my career and can say with some certainty that the UP was one of the only roads I can recall that standardized 9' long ties.
Most other Class I's were 8'6" and the SP and Canadian Class I's actually used a lot of 8' ties.

Well ain't that special.   Guess who's feeding a lot of the raw info here.   @robert3985 , Mr. UP himself!   I actually find that pretty humorous and if Robert wants 9' ties, Robert gets 9' ties.  He and Ed Nadolski has been very helpful.  This is a really good example of what this is all about.  We can have a lot of details at little to no extra cost.  I'll make 9', UP mainline, and then continue with 8'6" for (most) everything else?  Agreed?

Is there any other good tie tidbits that you could shed light on?  Switches at 19.5" spacing for example?  Bridge track? Anything else that strikes you?

[narrowminded]

Agreed; these spacings match the Fast Tracks tie jigs/racks.  Personally, starting a new branch/switching layout, the branch and siding products are of interest to me.

How soon will you be ready to lay track?  It won't be long until this is available but if your need arises before this is announced, make sure to contact me.  I suspect we will be able to hook you up even if all details, instructions, packaging and such aren't completed.  Thanks for your interest.

[John]

So if you are doing a code 40 UP branch, with 9' ties, you will need to also do a section or two of 9' ties on the main .. otherwise it might look "off"

[ednadolski]

Another color test w/the concrete tie strips:  here are a few quick pics of a strip, using an artist's paint pen to color the tie clips.  This kind of pen has a point tip on one end and a chisel tip on the other; I found that the latter was easier & faster for me:






It's a little hard to see in the pics, but one thing that is different from using a brush is that you get less paint on the sides of the clips.   This has the effect of making the clips look smaller when viewed from a low side angle.

(Edit - I forgot to mention, I painted the clips before installing the rail.)

(Side note: you don't want to use a Sharpie for this, if you are going to spray alcohol to wet the ballast for gluing.)

Ed