Tutorial Video: Hand-lay an N-Scale Code 40 Turnout

[ednadolski]

For extra realism, I use Prototo87Stores N-scale three-way planed point rails, which work like the real deal, and don't require you to remove the foot of adjacent stock rails.  At $9.95 each, they really add to the cost of your hand-laid turnouts, but look great!  One of these days, I'll figure out how to make 'em myself, but for now, I just bite the bullet and buy 'em.

I believe they are CNC milled.   Probably have to make a whole bunch of them before it becomes economical.

For the ones I've ever used, I've always ended up having to file/fiddle to some degree.   Ditto for P:48 cast points


Ed

[narrowminded]

I believe they are CNC milled.   Probably have to make a whole bunch of them before it becomes economical.

For the ones I've ever used, I've always ended up having to file/fiddle to some degree.   Ditto for P:48 cast points


Ed

I have been working on the fixtures for three way milled point closure rails and expect I will offer them as standards. One thing I noticed about @robert3985's throw bar attachments is they must be code 55 rail as I think it will be difficult fitting them in to code 40 flanges but even if you manage to fit them, that close to the wheel flange C/L won't allow sufficient clearance for our wheels.  Code 55 would be close but doable with care but I doubt code 40 would fit even if you could get functional holes drilled in the code 40 flanges.  Possibly true, Robert?

In case folks are wondering if I've been working on this, I've had a several month interruption but I'm back at it, trying to get all of the loose ends figured, tooling made, etc.  This is a HUGE undertaking with the endless number of details that go into the project when striving for the level of detail and performance that I am.  Example of current efforts include a hinged throw bar attachment method figured out (I think) that will be pretty prototypical, very functional, and should work with code 40 rail.  I am also considering provisions for prototypical two throw bar (or maybe even more on the big ones) attachments several ties apart. 

And of course the thing needs to operate.  Work on the drawing board right now is a functional switch stand with accurate 90 degree rotation to be used for manual operation.  Prototype for dialing in the mechanics was completed this week and I'm literally trying to stuff the mechanics of it all into a scale piece that can be installed between adjacent tracks in tight sidings without lifting the turnout out of place.  Not sure yet that I'll make that.   Then power routing if possible.   Wish me luck on this because the space I'm striving to fit this into is tough... but would/ will be way cool.   At least I think so.

Next, and much easier, is a functioning cosmetic stand with an accurate 90 degree turn for tortoise or servo motorized installations.  Easy install and true action it could also be a general retrofit piece.

[robert3985]

I have been working on the fixtures for three way milled point closure rails and expect I will offer them as standards. One thing I noticed about @robert3985's throw bar attachments is they must be code 55 rail as I think it will be difficult fitting them in to code 40 flanges but even if you manage to fit them, that close to the wheel flange C/L won't allow sufficient clearance for our wheels.  Code 55 would be close but doable with care but I doubt code 40 would fit even if you could get functional holes drilled in the code 40 flanges.  Possibly true, Robert?

In case folks are wondering if I've been working on this, I've had a several month interruption but I'm back at it, trying to get all of the loose ends figured, tooling made, etc.  This is a HUGE undertaking with the endless number of details that go into the project when striving for the level of detail and performance that I am.  Example of current efforts include a hinged throw bar attachment method figured out (I think) that will be pretty prototypical, very functional, and should work with code 40 rail.  I am also considering provisions for prototypical two throw bar (or maybe even more on the big ones) attachments several ties apart. 

And of course the thing needs to operate.  Work on the drawing board right now is a functional switch stand with accurate 90 degree rotation to be used for manual operation.  Prototype for dialing in the mechanics was completed this week and I'm literally trying to stuff the mechanics of it all into a scale piece that can be installed between adjacent tracks in tight sidings without lifting the turnout out of place.  Not sure yet that I'll make that.   Then power routing if possible.   Wish me luck on this because the space I'm striving to fit this into is tough... but would/ will be way cool.   At least I think so.

Next, and much easier, is a functioning cosmetic stand with an accurate 90 degree turn for tortoise or servo motorized installations.  Easy install and true action it could also be a general retrofit piece.

Good to hear from ya Mark! @narrowminded   About my hinged throwbars being incompatible with Code 40 rail....I believe you might be right!  I haven't tried them with Code 40 turnouts yet.  BUT, they work great with Code 55 switches.

I don't actually need hinged throwbars since I'm using Proto87Stores Point Rail Heel hinges (which both rotate and slide) I am most likely to cobble something cosmetic together to represent the "rods" used on prototype switches, and solder them to the tops of the PCB throwbar, and solder the Code 40 "tri-planed" point rails to the PCB throwbar solidly.

1" diameter "rod" would essentially be .006" wire, with a flattened end soldered to the top surface of the railfoot, and the rest of it soldered to the copper cladding of the PCB throwbar, with a gap in the middle where the Tortoise actuator lever sticks through the throwbar. 

That would give me (theoretically) .038" flange clearance, which will be plenty since all of my cars have lo-pro flanges.  Some engines might bounce, but I doubt it.

For those of you who think my math is wrong, my measurements of Micro Engineering Code 40 rail has it at .044" tall nowadays.

Always good to get your input Mark!

Now, when are we going to see some Code 55 Heavy Traffic Mainline tie strips?????

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[jagged ben]

I have been working on the fixtures for three way milled point closure rails and expect I will offer them as standards. ...

Just to be clear, are you talking about something similar to the Fast Tracks PointForm and StockAids that would allow for easily filing three way point closure rails?   That would be awesome in my book.   In my opinion those tools are much more important to the Fast Tracks method than the fixture for assembling the turnout.  As the OP video shows, the assembly can be done on a template, in fact it's part of my method to start assembly with the fixture and finish it on a template because there are a features I add and do differently at a certain point.  Anyway, a better version of the PointForm tool that would simplify and standardized making three-way milled points by hand would advance the whole concept tremendously.    I've certainly thought about ordering proto87 parts but just haven't got roun-to-it.  Plus I'd prefer to amortize the cost of a tool to make parts myself, and always have the ability to make more if a manufacturer goes out of business.

[narrowminded]

Just to be clear, are you talking about something similar to the Fast Tracks PointForm and StockAids that would allow for easily filing three way point closure rails?   That would be awesome in my book...

Sorry @jagged ben, but I don't think those details and the precision required for that kind of joint could be filed.   It's hard enough to grip the rails in the milling machine even with precise fixturing.  Machining those will start with a very precise bend (fixture one) then in and out of the mill two times (two more fixtures) using very fine cutters ground at the web angle for the finish cuts involving several passes on each one. 

This gets the point rail ready but then the throw bar attachment has to be added and is a precision machined part (one more fixture) soldered in place with a minimal joint size and without getting the solder under the rail past the machined angle where it now has to ride over the stock rail without interference, yet solidly attached (more fixtures) .  The method includes a file for final cleanup, specially ground to cut on one face only, about three thousandths at the point and at the angle required back in the tiny pocket created where the throw bar attaches.  It's actually a very involved little assembly when completed.  And I entirely blame @robert3985 for getting me into this at this level.   I was content to relieve the rails in a similar fashion to the common methods used for ages but Robert sucked me in.   I'm still working on some of these details, especially the soldering, maybe even true silver brazing if tests suggest it's necessary.  That's an area I'm working on right now, the attachment of the throw bars to the rails with the required appearance, clearances, and strength. 

And then there's a manual operator that's a scale switch stand and I think, power routing, as well as just a true 90 degree functioning switch stand for those applications with servos driving from under the board.  The mechanics of those have been tested and work pretty slick but they are not detailed out yet.  And either of those stand devices are pretty generic in their application so should be adaptable to pretty much anybody's turnout.  And for John, no it's not magnets under the rails.   You've got that and I will contact you if I would ever want to use something similar.

What might be good news to some is that I expect I will be happy to sell any of these things as parts for someone wanting to roll their own.  The switch stands will work with any of the switches and will probably be made in HO as well.  In fact, the add on stands for under table machines may be ready pretty soon and could be pushed ahead if there was any immediate interest in those.  Very simple operation and easy to install... I think.   Well, that's more of an update than I had planned but, there it is.

[Mark5]

For those of you who think my math is wrong, my measurements of Micro Engineering Code 40 rail has it at .044" tall nowadays.

Seriously?  That would make it almost perfect for 131 lb rail that was used by N&W back in the 30s/40s. 

I might have to grab some samples before I start the layout ...

[ednadolski]

@narrowminded  I know being asked about timeframes is a bit of a drag, but would you have any kind of ballpark in mind?   My reason for asking is, I've been mulling over re-visiting my etched turnout tieplate strip [1] to make a version for a #10 with code 40 rail,  but your approach sounds so much better to me that it would be worth waiting for.

Ed

[1] for a #12 in Code 55 rail: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=34762.msg404138#msg404138

[narrowminded]

Seriously?  That would make it almost perfect for 131 lb rail that was used by N&W back in the 30s/40s. 

I might have to grab some samples before I start the layout ...

I have a fair stock of ME code 40 rail and all that I've checked is .043" high.  I have made a code 55 to code 40 adapter strip and have used measured dimensions of .055" for the code 55 and .043" for the code 40. 

At this point, +/- .001" or even .002" in either the ties or the rail is an acceptable tolerance that will be naturally corrected in the installation steps, finally pressing the glued rail down in place with a flat tool.  With all of the pieces pretty accurate going in the result in gauge and height comes out surprisingly accurate with no special effort.

[narrowminded]

@narrowminded  I know being asked about timeframes is a bit of a drag, but would you have any kind of ballpark in mind?   My reason for asking is, I've been mulling over re-visiting my etched turnout tieplate strip [1] to make a version for a #10 with code 40 rail,  but your approach sounds so much better to me that it would be worth waiting for.

Ed

[1] for a #12 in Code 55 rail: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=34762.msg404138#msg404138

That would be nice, Ed.  If you watch for the first completed turnouts (probably #6 or #8) the rest should be fairly quick to complete as it becomes largely filling in the blanks.  So I would suggest that if you're getting ready to go, bug me again when you see the first completed as I can prioritize the schedule at that point based on immediate needs.  BTW, do you have any idea what time frame you might be looking/ wishing for? 

And while we're here, because you're one of the big proponents of super right details, we should talk at some point.  I have so many things on my plate right now so don't feel like I need another project to interfere with completing what I've already started, but... I've got some ideas for some detail pieces that you might be interested in and I wouldn't mind your thoughts on some of them.  Many are track related but not all.

[svedblen]

I suddenly remembered that I actually (tried) to build a N-Scale Code 40 turnout some 10-15 years ago. It had tie plates and some other detailing, but it never functioned very well  Anyway, here are some pictures for your viewing (non-)pleasure.

[ednadolski]

@svedblen that sure looks good in the pics!  Could you please elaborate some more - build materials, techniques, where you felt it could have functioned better....?

E.

[svedblen]

Could you please elaborate some more - build materials, techniques, where you felt it could have functioned better....?

It was a few years back so I do not really remember the details. I thought I should refresh my memory by checking an old blog of mind, and found the posts describing the build of this turnout. So I am taking the lazy route and will let anyone interested check out the blog pages themselves    Here is a link to the 6 posts describing the turnout build (and to all other posts in the Track Laying category):
https://blog.lsvedberg.se/category/category3/page/6/

Interestingly enough, my old blog posts say that the turnout operates fine! It only mentions some (fixed) problems with the throwbar. That is however not as I remember it. The layout was never finished, due to a move, so I'm really not able to tell how it would have held out in the long run. I only remember things were not very easy, but if that was the build itself, operations, or both...? But in some way the build was rewarding, and I still cling to the turnout itself, which was salvaged when the layout was dismantled.

EDIT:
Here is the short version:
- Built on the workbench
- Paper template glued to piece of plywood
- ME Code 40 rail
- All wood ties (no PCB for aesthetic reasons)
- Proto87 Store etched N-scale tie plates
- Proto87 Store N-scale drawbar kit - discarded - to clumsy for Code 40
Tie plates glued to template, and then rails on top of that. The problem is that the tie plates must go down in a first step, seperate from the rails, which gives little room for later adjustments. As opposed to O-scale where the same spike holds bothe the plate and the rail, and both go down at the same time, and bothe can be adjusted later if needed. As I remeber it everything was later fixed in place with additional CA. That is what gives the ties and tie plates a somewhat shiny look.

[ednadolski]

@svedblen cool, thx for teh update.   One question, if you still have the turnout it would be interesting to know how the CA has held up over time - does it still seem solid?

Ed

[svedblen]

One question, if you still have the turnout it would be interesting to know how the CA has held up over time - does it still seem solid?

@ednadolski, yes, it still seems solid. But it has just been lying around in a box and not put up to any stress.

[robert3985]

@svedblen Well, that's the first turnout I've ever seen that actually used Proto87Store's fret of turnout plates and parts!  Although where the plates are extra large, they can be readily seen, the "normal" tie plates are hardly there, as I suspected when looking at my dozen frets.

However, it looks really good, and if the throwbar was the only problem, that IS a very common problem with N-scale hand-laid turnouts. 

When I thought about doing it, it became clear to me that it was gonna add triple or quadruple the time to building a "regular" code 40 turnout, so I didn't use the detail fret.

If I WERE to use a detail fret, I would have my own made much like Ed @ednadolski  has done for his #12 Code 55 turnout....which, frankly, is the best-looking hand-laid N-scale turnout I've ever seen.  Of particular note is his larger sized "spikehead" and nut & bolt details, which get lost with Andy's Proto87Stores fret, first because I think the tie plate is about 2/3rds the size it should be, and the spikeheads are not high enough.

In any case, too bad the layout didn't get finished.  I would have really liked to have seen the rest of your trackwork, as this example is very nice indeed!