Tehachapi, BC

[GaryHinshaw]

Good question shark_jj.  Since the track is not glued in yet, I took some quick shots to illustrate what I'm doing.   The first shot shows a joint in the Loop pulled apart by 1-2 ties:



The far rail is part of the left piece of flex, and it overhangs by about 5-6 ties, while the near rail is cut short 5-6 ties (and vice-versa for the right section).  In the portion of each piece that is single rail, I gently pre-bend the rail to roughly the curve radius, then join the two pieces with the tie clips as the guide:



(I need to trim the far rail a wee bit shorter, but I want some expansion gaps in any case.)  Here's an overhead shot of the same joint, showing that it's almost invisible (this is a 21" radius curve):



No rail joiners, and the track is still just resting in place.  The rack train in the video did just fine through these joints.

Cheers,
Gary

P.S. I see DKS has weighed in too.  Thanks for the tip David and MC.

As long as it isn't combined with the AH one....   

    

[shark_jj]

thanks for the tip guys, that is an interesting approach, I am going to give it a try. 

[DKS]

We need a mind-blown emoticon.

     

[ednadolski]

Say Gary, did you make the passing siding and the main the same height?   I'm not sure if the proto has the same height or if the siding is lower.

On my loop layout, I used Z scale cork roadbed under the siding, so it came out about 1/32" lower.   I'm pleased with the effect even tho it is a pretty subtle difference that's hard to see, even when looking for it.   (I'm not sure it would even be discernible in a photo.)   

I still wish that ME had the concrete tie flextrack available when I built my layout -- I guess that dates me to pre-1997 

Ed


Edit -- added David's new icon

[GaryHinshaw]

Ed, I did make the siding the same elevation as the main line in the Loop.  I've never seen any discernible difference in any photos I've seen, so it frankly never occurred to me to do otherwise.  I will definitely lower the industrial tracks at Monolith and Edison however.

Cheers,
Gary

P.S. The concrete ties are one of the few things that date the Pass.  I won't let that stop me from running cab-forwards and reefer blocks, should I happen upon any.   

[ednadolski]

I won't let that stop me from running cab-forwards and reefer blocks, should I happen upon any.   

The La Mesa club is dated for the 1950s, but plenty of guys run stack trains and modern power.   I've always wanted to put together a Super Fleet consist, and that would be even more cool with the new FVM GP60Ms.   And then of course there is the UP 3958 Challenger 

4 units hauling a 14' rack train without incident ....  Wish I had sound like that in reality!

Have you checked out this CD?  Tracks 2, 5, 7, and 10 were recorded on the Loop, and are especially impressive   

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Big-Train-Sound-CD-Authentic-Train-Sound-Rail-Fans-/170601326458?pt=Model_RR_Trains&hash=item27b8a1a77a

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

[I originally posted this late Saturday night, but it got hosed in the RW transition, and I've been out of town since then.  Trying to repost from memory now.]  Thanks for the CD tip Ed, I'll definitely look into that.  I'm also tempted to try out Lance Mindheim's headphone-based sound system, some day...

Turnout time.  As I posted in WU, after a few practice runs, I finally managed to get through a full FT turnout build that I'm reasonably happy with.  A few shots:




A few comments on the process:

* FT assembly jig - While this is a great piece of machining, I was never able to get consistently good solder joints with the ties and rail in the fixture - it was just too much of a heat sink for the setup I have.  I'm using a 60 watt "digital" station with the temp set to 800 F, but I'm using a pencil tip and I think the narrow tip is just not transferring enough heat to the work given the constraints of the fixture.  I ended up assembling this turnout over one of the paper templates and positioning the rails myself.  This allowed me to get more iron surface area on the work and gave great solder joints.  I may try a blunter tip in the fixture, but it's not really that difficult to use a template either.

* Weathered rail - In my earlier builds I was having some issues with the solder wicking up into the rail webbing and looking unsightly (to me).  I decided to try ME weathered rail on this build because solder does not stick to the weathered finish.  Before soldering the rail to the PC ties, I files the rail base bare where the PC ties are located, including a little bit around the side of the base.  This worked beautifully!  The joints are very solid; there was no excess solder on the rail; and the rail finish matches the rest of the mainline perfectly.  I highly recommend it if you like the ME weathered finish.

* Point rails - My biggest complaint about the process is the point rails.  I filed these using the FT point tool (which is a very nice tool) but I files the tip so much that the webbing was paper thin, which makes the head of the rail very flimsy.   Here's a close-up:



(It's a bit hard to tell how thin the webbing is in this shot, but there is a tendency for the head of the rail not to meet the stock rail tightly because the force of the throw-bar does not reliably transfer from the base through the thin webbing.)    I'm also concerned that the soldered throw-bar might not be very robust, because the point rail base is so thin.  I did fillet this solder joint pretty well, and it does seem like a sturdy joint now, but the last thing I want to be doing is repairing blown points in hard to reach places...

Because of this, I did some research and put in an order for some turnout kits from the proto:87 store.  These kits include chemically milled frogs, 3-plane milled points, and throw-bar kits.  These have the potential to save me time and improve reliability --  I'll let you know how they work out, and if anyone has experience with them, I'd love to hear about it.

I wish the Atlas turnouts were better quality, but they look a bit clunky to me, and I've found the points on them to be quite fragile.   I think there is still room for a better RTR #10 turnout in the N scale world.

Cheers,
Gary

P.S. Ed N sent me an email yesterday with some nice tips on point filing, including filing the tips paper thin and then trimming them back a bit and rounding the railhead.  I'll give that a shot.

[Chris333]

Gary,
I agree about the jig being a huge heatsink. One of the first FT jigs I used was a Z #6 that I borrowed. He had routed out wider slots that weren't as deep as the tie slots. This way it still holds the ties, but the top of the tie is slightly above the routed section of the jig. I later borrowed a Z #8 without modifications and could barely get anything to stick.


I use a flathead screwdriver tip on my iron that is just about as wide as N scale ties.

For the points. After I file I stick my fingernail into the web and find were the "meat" starts and trim just back from there. To get the rest of the "point" I file the inner rail head thinner.

/>What I'm talking about around the 7 min mark.

[wcfn100]

The webbing is just an inherent problem with the Fast Tracks jig.  The way around it is not to use it.

There is a much better way to make points and frogs.  I posted it once here to no avail so if any one is interested, I can send them the info.

Jason

[Andrew Hutchinson]

re point support: I use the other method that Rene's article introduced me to seen here in figure three:

http://www.proto87.org/p87/journal/n6/turnout.html

Having seen Rene's filing block in action I'm not as scared to show you mine:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32922165@N06/4251821064/

once you've bent the end of the point or frog rail like " _/  " (slightly hockey stick shaped) file the inside of the bend flat with the rest of the rail by hand and then turn it over and file the back to the specified angle in the filing block. This sort of construction doesn't take much more time than filing angles the other way but it provides for a much stronger web. I put a saw cut at the end of the filing block for the rail foot  to seat so that the rail sits flat on its side while filing the side that mates with the stock rail.

Something a little bit off topic but may be of interest for those using the Reichert style throw or signal bars is the two part point. I could never get things to look right drilling the base of code 40 and always struggled to make and apply the support bar the way Rene' did so I ended up soldering the rail to some brass that could take any shape desirable allowing the inclusion of things like signal bars, secondary drive rods, bearings and such  where needed. While the NP switch below doesn't really need this treatment there were images depicting its construction. If you can make the P87stores  N scale throw bars work as intended then please ignore.

A diagram showing the basics of  the  point construction: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32922165@N06/7036962239/in/set-72157625708246107

Here's the NP spring frog turnout using the points: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32922165@N06/7217541864/in/set-72157625708246107

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32922165@N06/7217541944/in/set-72157625708246107/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32922165@N06/7243718350/in/set-72157625708246107

Edit: fixed a link. -gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks for the info gents, and very helpful photos Andrew!  Some questions:

* Chris, does the Z-gauge fixture come milled that way, or did someone do that as an after-market mod?  I'm inclined to abandon the fixture in any case, especially if the milled frogs work out. 

* Jason, is Fig 3 of Rene's article what you were referring to?  It looks like a good approach for a stronger webbing.

* Andrew, I'm a bit confused about some of the details.  In this photo, am I looking at one pair of points "joined at the hip?"  Do you file the points before this step, and mill the channel afterwards?

* In this photo am I seeing one installed point with the channel milled away, and a pair of still-joined points off to the side?  Are the tabs on the point base a portion of the channel that wasn't milled, or separate parts that were attached later?

* How did you hinge the points?  I don't quite understand how you're using the heel block in your diagram, and it looks like a rail joiner is being used in the next-to-last photo.

* Do you have a better photo of the completed turnout than that last one?    Are you happy with how that one performs?

Thanks much,
Gary

P.S. Does anyone actually have a p87 point they could post a picture of?  Are they similar to the ones in Rene's article?  I bought them sight unseen from the store, but couldn't for the life of me find a decent photo of one on their web site. In general, it was trickier than necessary to correlate items in their product list with photos and descriptions on their web site... 

[nscalemike]

Gary,

I can't help you at all with the turnouts since I have never built one myself.  However, being a fan of the Atlas #10 turnouts I'll admit they have some issues, buy your scratch built one next the to the atlas one looks far better!  It almost makes me want to try and scratch one or two just to see what happens!

Always enjoy reading your updates Gary!

Mike

[wcfn100]

* Jason, is Fig 3 of Rene's article what you were referring to?  It looks like a good approach for a stronger webbing.

Basically but you don't need the reinforcing bar.

These are from a track laying book from the 70's.





I'd be surprised if you ever used the jig again. It's that much better.

Jason

[PGE_Modeller]

Jason,

While, as you say, the reinforcing bar is not necessary, including it does result in a more prototypically correct switch point.  The first place I can recall seeing this method of forming points described was in a two-part article by Robert Cushman on building a double slip switch in the September and October 1953 issues of "Model Railroader".  Point construction was in the 2nd part.

The method you show for producing the frog point is also prototypically correct and shows that frogs are "handed".  The rail that comes right to the "point of the frog" is the normal route.  Thus, the illustration is for a RH frog if the straight route is normal and for a LH frog if the diverging route is normal.

The underlying principle, in both cases, is to ensure that the head of the rail is fully supported by the web.

Cheers,
Greg Kennelly
Burnaby, BC

[Andrew Hutchinson]

Hi Gary,

Note one: All of the hardware shown was designed around proto120 standards shrunk down to N gauge. Some thingss will work as is, some with modification for running paths and some not at all when placed in use with existing NMRA N scale standards. 

Note two: The points solve two problemsfor me  the first of which is not being able to use the reichert style throwbars with code40 rail in a way that I felt comfortable with and second P87 stores doesn't make the styles and length of switch blade I need.


question one: While not joined at the hip they are left and right points. The excess brass channel is left over from milling - my hold downs were set up to cut for my GN modelling (19'6" and 30') and not the 15' points I ended up with on the NP turnout in the photos. I didn't want to sacrafice any of the 30's as they are harder to mill so I went with the shorter 19'6" channel and lopped off the ends as a finishing step just before they were split up the middle with a hand saw. By soldering both points to a single channel during construction the chances of getting everything square increases greatly.
 In terms of construction the best way so far has been to mill the channel  and file the running side of the points to fit (kinking the rail and all) and then solder them together once everything is square and flat. After that I file the back side to fit the stock rails and as mentioned split them as a final step.

 Question two: Yes there are three point blades in that photo. That one switch ate up three sets. One is somewhere in my work area another somewhere between central hobbies and the park and ride. ANd yes the tabs are what is left of the channel after it was split and filed to suit. The NP switches I'm interested in had only two uninsulated bars. I;m thinking they need some .002" squares soldered to them for added relief but I haven't got around to it yet.  If made to a height that respects NMRA tolerances the C channel /angle bar could well be employed to code 55 rail.

Question three : I mislabeled the heel block in my sketch... it is the top left hand T-shape. The NP used angled joint bars in this territory on light rail and they were used on the running side of the closure rails on my model as well. they are purely aesthetic, the T shaped heel block does all of the heavy lifting by restricting movement vertically. If carefully filed (I've screwed up my fair share) they nest between the stock and closure rails and keep the point from rocking or moving out of alignment. I don't know if they would work outside of P120 or proper FS160 on code 40 rail as the flangeway requirements might well prove deeper than teh .016" material I use for the heel block. You'd need deeper material in code 55 but the railhead is also deeper . Just thinking and typing, but the added depth of the two might just work with C55. might be something to try at a later date.

Question 4: better photos - no - jutst more crappy photos and mislabeled diagrams.
The turnout operating unit is unfinshed- in fact I haven't worked on it since my visit to tehachapi, BC. All of the P87posse  jobs keep getting in the way of my N scale work.
The turnout itself does function albeit manually by moving the cylindrical dropper nuts.
 I managed to screw up a fair amount of things during the build. There is a slight warp to the board I built it on and as it turns out the turnout in question will likely have to be split between two baseboards.  The ties were gouged badly and required extensive work to fix. I lost most of the spring cannisters I turned.  BUT the frog, even though it moves, was less trouble than the manganese inserts  I usually construct.

I'll try to scan in another diagram of the heel block  when I get back in this evening.

Andrew Hutchinson