N scale code 40 vs code 55 any thoughts?

[robert3985]

Robert,

Very nice work.  Does the Heel Block Hinge from the proto 87 site come in N scale sizes or does that not really matter? 

John

John, Yup.  The Heel Block Hinges that I use are N-scale and work for both Code55 and Code40.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[MILWcoastdiv]

John please give hand laying code 40 a try!  I love it, one of the posters mentioned it's Zen like experience and I agree.  One thing that I hadn't seen mentioned is that I now build using the domino method - 5 - 6 ft long modules that I can set up near my bench, that method helps a lot..  I glue paper templates down and build in place.  I use fast tracks products - pre gapped cross ties and turnout ties.  I 3d print tie strips almost like Central Valley.  One thing I found is that .060 tie width is a bit wide for my liking so I print my ties at .05 instead with gaps in tie spacing so I can drop in the pregapped ties. 

If you use ME code 40 flex I knock the spike heads down a bit with a dremel grinding wheel simply by dragging it down the track, not using the tool.  I spoke to ME this spring and they did tell me they are planning on offering all of the code 40 line.

This a bit of a tangent but getting a 3d printer was the best model RR tool I've purchased especially for N scale.  I print a lot; turnout mechanisms, bridges, trestles, buildings and especially turnout strips.

My goal is to make my track look like HO scale, and is quite doable.

/>
Above is a video of the method I use. 

My trackage doesn't look as nice as some of the other posters but I really enjoy it, works good, cheaper and never have to wait for the mail to come.

Go code 40!

Mario




 

[nkalanaga]

Proto:87 is very close to N scale RP-25 track standards, so it's not surprising that P:87 parts work for N scale track.

Incidentally, I also used the notched-rail pint hinges on my #8 dual-gauge turnouts, mostly because there was no room for solid-rail points to flex.  Between wider-than-scale rail bases, and "Nn3" actually being about 41 inch gauge, things got tight.

[Jscottw]

Do you have to file the hinge points down at all or just use them as is?

[Bill H]

FWIW, I have used both  standard and wider clover house pcb ties for throwbars with zero issues over 23 years on a complex switching layout. No hinge points. Code 40 rail has a lot of flex and if you are concerned with flex, just file a notch in the rail at the point you want the flex. Only thing different I use is silver solder on the points. And where tortoises are used, I use a small wire so that the hole in the throwbar is small enough not to have integrity issues. On sidings I use slide switches with again small wire to the throw bar. Never tried it on code 55, as I only use code 40.

[Angus Shops]

I have a total of about 80 switches on my layout, all hand built, all code 55. All of the points are ‘solid’ (no hinge) and the points are soldered to standard pcb tie throw bars with standard solder. Most of my switches are #7’s, with a few #9’s and maybe 12 #6’s - in theory the longer point rail is more flexible and places less stress on the rail/throw bar joint. I use slide switches for movement (and power to the frog) and use surprisingly thin PB wire between the throw bar and the slide switch (0.015). I also add a “U” shaped bend in the wire to absorb the compression or tension force in the wire as the distance of the slide switch throw is longer than the movement of the points. This seems to hold the point against the rail firmly without over stressing the solder joint.

This is not to say that the more elaborate hinges and point rail/ throw bar connections are unnecessary - they are probably superior to my work - only that I don’t think I have the skills to construct them. I admit absolutely that I do have an occasional failure of my soldered point rail/throw bar connection (1 or 2 per year), but they only take a couple minutes to fix.  My layout built on a “keep it simple” basis (as is most of my other endeavours, from my fly fishing to my career as a landscape architect (solid design, not to flashy)).

[Jscottw]

I have made a few with code 55 I can see there is much more pressure on the code 55 throw bars.  The code 40 throw much smoother.

John

[robert3985]

This post is for those who want their point rails to be hinged, both in Code40 and Code55.  Those of you who are happy with non-hinged point rails need not read any further.

When I first started teaching myself how to make my own turnouts way back in the late 1970's/early 1980's, I wanted both simplicity and reliability...but, I also wanted a good bit of realism also.

My first turnouts were to be used on my NTRAK modules, and with permission from Jim Fitzgerald, I was able to use Rail Craft Code70 flex along with my Code70 hand-built turnouts on the mainlines, with Code55 track & turnouts on my sidings and one large industrial spur.

I immediately perceived that the weak point in my turnouts, no matter what size the rail was, was going to be at the throwbar.  So I designed a "solder tab" at the point rail toes, which basically was bending the rail at a 90deg angle at the toes, and filing away everything except the rail foot, which got soldered to the PCB throwbar.  These worked quite well, but I didn't like the way they looked, both the throwbar being in the wrong position and not having hinges to get that distinctive "kink" at the closure rail toes/point rail heels where prototypically, a hinge was supposed to be.

Photo (1) - "Solder tabs" at the point rail toes on my early Code55 & Code40 turnouts...


These worked great on that first NTRAK set of modules, but my turnouts didn't have point rail hinges, which I wanted.  BUT, I also wanted simplicity as well as a more prototypical appearance, so I cooked up the "notch hinge" idea to incorporate on my new Echo Junction layout sections which would use Code55 for the mainlines and Code40 for sidings & branchline.  I was out of NTRAK by this time, so I wasn't worried about complying with NTRAK standards and the new club standards encouraged hand-laid turnouts.

The notch hinges worked great as hinges and keeping electrical continuity independent of any contact with the adjacent stock rails, working reliably with Code40 turnouts, but Code55 turnouts were breaking their solder joints at the throwbars all the time, even with my big soldering tabs, and after repeated re-solderings, the PCB throwbars would de-laminate and have to be replaced, which with under-layout Tortoises was a royal PITA and a two-man operation.

Frankly, I didn't know why the Code55 points were coming unsoldered, but the Code40 points weren't until I took the time to examine the problem and noticed that I could see the point rails on my Code40 turnouts were bending into an ever-so-slight "S" curve when thrown...this meant that there was a lot of torque being applied to my short, hinged point rails because the solid point "notch" hinges and the solid point-toe solder joints at the throwbar created a solid rectangle, and the angles at the corners of it needed to change when the throwbar was moved...and solid, non-sliding hinges didn't allow that....so, thinned Code40 point rails bent to compensate.

Photo (2) - Solid, non-sliding "notch" hinges and solid solder joints at the throwbar causing an "S" curve to happen in the Code40 point rails when thrown...


I also noticed I couldn't see any "S" curve happening in the much thicker Code55 point rails, which I concluded meant that there was exponentially more torque being applied to the solder tabs on my Code55 turnouts, leading to them breaking.

Photo (3) - Solid, non-sliding "notch" hinges and solid solder joints at the throwbar causing no discernible "S" curve to happen to much heavier Code55 point rails with thrown...


Possible solutions were to (1) Go back to no-hinges monolithic-closure-rail/point-rail turnouts...which I didn't want to do because of their appearance...(2) Use shortened rail joiners for point rail hinges like Micro Engineering does on their #6 turnouts...but those were a point of unreliability both mechanically and electrically, and I didn't like the way they looked (3) Or, design a sliding/rotating hinge that both looked good and was electrically reliable.

Additionally, I decided I wanted to get rid of the funky looking soldering tabs at the point rail toes and design a much more realistic looking throwbar attachment there.

I also have never liked having to file away the stock rail foot that's adjacent to the point rails because it isn't prototypical.

Andy Reichert at Proto87Stores had the solution to the point rail hinge problem, and also had the answer to a prototype functioning/appearing set of point rails too. 

And I came up with a more realistic looking and reliably functioning way to hinge the point rails at the throwbar.

Yup, I definitely could have chosen a more simple way to get my point rails to be reliable, but it would have sacrificed a more realistic-looking turnout as my skills and track building preferences evolved.

So, just like anything, we all have our preferences and my main goal is not to have simplicity, but to have more prototypical detail and function, as well as reliability...which involves more work.

It makes me pretty happy and for those of us who are more detail-oriented, also offers possible solutions.

Now, my next track project is going to be 3D printed turnout tie configurations, with full track furniture so I can finally get prototypically detailed turnouts for this last stage of my layout!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

 

[Jscottw]

Bob,

Did the tabs make the points considerably stronger?  They do look a little strange but they did give me an idea to try.

John

[robert3985]

Bob,

Did the tabs make the points considerably stronger?  They do look a little strange but they did give me an idea to try.

John

John, I would say that they offer quite a bit more surface area which equates to more strength than merely soldering what's left of a point rail's rail foot to the PCB throwbar.  These worked okay for me (not coming unsoldered) with my Code40 turnouts with "notch" hinges since the thinness of the filed-down point rails allow the point rails to flex. 

However, unless you're gonna do the long one-piece hingeless closure rails/point rails, these didn't work for my "notch" hinged Code55 turnouts and still kept breaking the throwbar solder joints.

If I'd been smarter, to disguise that these tabs extend past the point rail toes, I would have made the throwbar...the actual throwbar...look like one of the two long headblock ties, with a short, fake "throwbar" soldered to adjacent stock rails between the headblocks, but not to the two point rails, which would slide on the fake throwbar.

I'd be interested to find out what you've got in mind!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Jscottw]

Here is a code 40 n scale switch but it is a non hinged version.

[MILWcoastdiv]

Something else not mentioned in this thread, I just noticed with my soldered cross ties is that I'm getting some waviness due to thermal expansion.  I don't have great conditions in my basement; not heated in the winter and now that it's summer its a bit warm down there.  When I hand spiked track in HO scale I think there was more forgiveness due to the nails being mechanically fastened to the sub bed.  With N scale the rail is locked in every 8-10 ties or so with soldered ties so things are much more rigid with little wiggle room for thermal expansion / contraction.  I had to cut a few gaps here and there yesterday, no biggie but something else to keep in mind if not using flex.

Mario

[Jscottw]

I know some years ago I used particle board as a base and glued cork on it. Moisture made it expand so much that i had a lot of rail binding and moving issues when it became dry over time.  Now that I have temperature control and a dehumidifier everything seems to stay constant.  I now use plywood and make sure I at least put a sealer on everything to keep it clean and from adsorbing any moisture.

John

[peteski]

Something else not mentioned in this thread, I just noticed with my soldered cross ties is that I'm getting some waviness due to thermal expansion.  I don't have great conditions in my basement; not heated in the winter and now that it's summer its a bit warm down there.  When I hand spiked track in HO scale I think there was more forgiveness due to the nails being mechanically fastened to the sub bed.  With N scale the rail is locked in every 8-10 ties or so with soldered ties so things are much more rigid with little wiggle room for thermal expansion / contraction.  I had to cut a few gaps here and there yesterday, no biggie but something else to keep in mind if not using flex.

Mario

This can happen even with flex track. My friend's layout is built using L-girders and plywood. Using cork roadbed, and Peco flex track glued to the roadbed.  It is in a climate controlled room (heated and air-conditioned.   It was stable for couple of years after the construction was finished, then it decided to pop the flextrack on couple of curves.  Few more expansion gaps had to be added.  It has been stable ever since (for about 15 years).

[robert3985]

This can happen even with flex track. My friend's layout is built using L-girders and plywood. Using cork roadbed, and Peco flex track glued to the roadbed.  It is in a climate controlled room (heated and air-conditioned.   It was stable for couple of years after the construction was finished, then it decided to pop the flextrack on couple of curves.  Few more expansion gaps had to be added.  It has been stable ever since (for about 15 years).

My Nn3 guru friend Gregg Cudworth's basement filling RGS multi-level layout started causing his hand-laid PCB Code30 Ribbon-Rail rails to kink badly a couple of years ago.  Gregg's benchwork is a complex, quality wood, suspended L-girder construction, and his basement is fully heated/cooled/insulated and we live in the nearly humidity-free State of Utah.  Gregg's answer to the problem was to cut expansion gaps at least every 6', sometimes closer, and use more PCB ties in future track laying, which automatically gets done now that expansion gaps are at most 6' apart now.

Gregg is using Code30 "Ribbon-Rail", which is actually just flattened nickel-silver wire and comes on a fairly large spool from England, so...Gregg wasn't cutting expansion gaps at all, thinking that his quality wood, fully climate controlled basement would preclude any expansion/contraction problems with his fine rails.

Gregg's assumption about the rails not expanding/contracting was spot-on, but...he had not thought about his quality wood benchwork contracting due to the low humidity in the region, which happened over several years, shrinking the layout in a very minuscule amount at certain points, so that even his splined Masonite (which may have also shrunk) subroadbed, which is very strong and very stable, couldn't compensate for the benchwork shrinkage.

On my layout, which is simple L-girder construction in removable sections, using quality dimensional prime pine boards and CDX 3/4" plywood, with splined Masonite subroadbed held together with quality Yellow Carpenter's Glue, then with my track laid on glued-on Midwest Cork Product N and HO scale cork roadbed, I haven't had any problems whatsoever with shrinkage and track kinking on either my hand-laid Code40 PCB branchline trackage or my Rail Craft Flex Code55 mainlines.  This is probably due to the relatively short lengths (mostly 6' long)  of my layout sections/modules, which automatically give me expansion/contraction gaps at every 6-foot-long layout section end.

Soooo...even though the environment may be pretty well climate controlled, and your benchwork is solidly constructed with quality materials, if you're using wood of any sort, it may not be a bad idea to seal it all before laying track, then create expansion gaps every 3 to 6 feet in your rails just to be sure that someday in the future, your track doesn't suddenly kink because your benchwork has expanded or contracted due to humidity, or lack of humidity.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore