The Proto:87 Stores or fastracks?

[TinyTurner]

I got to admit, up until recently I was unaware that Proto:87 Stores had any other scale than HO.
I am not yet the expert I want to be when it comes to track, and for me is just as much part of the scene as the trains or architecture.

His stuff looks impressive and a lot lower cost for jigs than Fastracks, appears to not use pcb ties anywhere.   
What I am thinking is to use Proto:87 Stores turnout bases made with their jigs and wood ties cut to size, and use Fastracks filing jigs I already have in code 40/55, to make the frogs and blades.
I guess it all gets glued down if its only on wood, I suppose PCB could be used for strength at specific areas, if I can find the PCB strips economically enough.  I don't know it your supposed to, but I thought of building all track on very thin ply or card, so it can be reused easily or adjusted, like building your own sectional track.

I am in the fortunate position to be able to get 2MM Association parts and rail in FB and BH, according to project, but out of all the manufacturers I am am not to sure what the closest scale profiles are for North American.
It does open up the possibility of building to FS:160, finer than NMRA.
Maybe I should use only Proto:87 stores parts, but that would be solely to NMRA, not FS:160.

I don't know if it will work, but I am hoping to save on jig costs which are off putting and only to NMRA standards.  I might be able to stretch to one or two Fastracks in the minimum radius I would use, but it is still a lot. 

Hidden staging track could just be PCB with no wood ties, I have seen this done at shows.
Visible track would be scale.
I would like to have a go at 'rough' track also, cutting into scale lengths or notching, then adding etched fishplate details. 

Trying to find the best overall options, I want to put an order in soon to get on with practising. 
Hopefully you can follow, have I missed something, what will work?

[garethashenden]

What are you planning on running for rolling stock? If you go with FS160 you really will need to rewheel everything. I haven't found any commercial wheels that work with it out of the box either. You really would be on your own. That's not to say it wouldn't be worth it, but be aware that its considerably more work for marginally smaller flangeways.

I don't really like the Proto87 stuff in practice. In theory and in pictures its great, but in use I found it disappointing. For example, with the etched frogs. There's a kerf from the etching halfway up the final assembly and no way to remove it. It just looks wrong, at least to me. Frogs made up from plain rail aren't totally correct either, but they're better looking.

What I do is use pcb ties on top of a paper template. I put half a dozen ties in and solder the rail to them. Then I will go back and glue in styrene ties for the majority of the ties. The rail I use is code 40. So far its all from the 2mm Association, but I have some Micro Engineering rail on its way to me. The ME rail is slightly less expensive, but I'm expecting that the 36" lengths will be more unwieldy than the 500mm ones. But we shall see. The ties I get from Voltscooter and they're etched to size and pretinned, which makes it easy to work with. https://voltscooter.com/product/n-scale-pcb-turnout-ties/

[amato1969]

Agree with @garethashenden .  Here is one of my code 40 switches, made using FastTracks filing jig, PCB ties, and paper template:



  Frank

[ednadolski]

I don't think I've ever seen or heard of anyone successfully building N scale trackwork using the Proto:87 Stores jigs.  I'd have to agree with @garethashenden in that I've generally been disappointed with most products that I've bought there over the years.

AFAIK you can't buy the etched frogs any more in assembled form, but it is a bear to solder them together.  Since they are etched from relatively thick metal, they have a 'layered' look from the cusping that is fairly conspicuous.

If you're thinking of using the N-scale etched tieplates, be aware that they are _very_ small and I found them almost impossible to handle (like handling dandruff flakes, so I have heard it described).  Plus, they are very hard to see after installation & painting, even close-up and under strong lighting.

I haven't used the throwbars for N scale, but I thought the HO ones were pretty flimsy.

You should add up all the costs of everything that you need in order to actually build turnouts (if you can find it on that website, GLWTO) in compliance with the "system" (you are "on your own" if you try to mix-and-match).  Be sure to include the cost of per-turnout supplies, such as frogs, points, throwbars, etc. before comparing to the cost of the FastTracks system.

Ed

[Sumner]

............if I can find the PCB strips economically enough....

I make my PCB ties for pennies and can make enough for a turnout in just a couple minutes....

https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/Trackwork/page-4.html

Do they all look exactly alike?  No, but neither do the ties I have for landscaping around the house.  I think it actually looks more prototypical if they all aren't exactly the same.

I use a FastTracks jig for #6 turnouts which are probably over 60% of the turnouts on the layout, but now do a lot of building turnouts & crossings off of paper templates and even modify some of those.  Learn to do that (not difficult) and you can build...





... turnouts & crossings to fit all kinds of special situations and make the layout look more like the real thing.  Are my turnouts perfect looking?  No as at my age I'm more into quantity vs. quality as the clock is ticking.  Lots more info here....

https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/Trackwork/Trackwork-Index.html


Sumner

[lock4244]

Trying to find the best overall options, I want to put an order in soon to get on with practising. 
Hopefully you can follow, have I missed something, what will work?

When you put something in your cart you receive the following notice:

"My Apologies. Due to a unusually large number of Year end orders, I have suspended taking further orders for the time being. All previously accepted orders will processed, but at a slower rate. Anyone with an existing order who would prefer to cancel and receive a full refund, please contact me via email.  contact@proto87.com"

[ednadolski]

"My Apologies. Due to a unusually large number of Year end orders, I have suspended taking further orders for the time being. All previously accepted orders will processed, but at a slower rate. Anyone with an existing order who would prefer to cancel and receive a full refund, please contact me via email.  contact@proto87.com"

It's been saying that since at least the end of last year.

Ed

[robert3985]

This is a complex subject, and since I feel like sh!t (COVID) I'm not gonna concern myself with the length.

Part 1 of 2:

When I started making my own N-scale turnouts in the early 1980's in Code70 for use on my first 12' of Ntrak modules (along with Railcraft Code70 flex track), both Proto87Stores and Fastracks hadn't been thought of yet.

So, I had to learn much of how to hand-build N-scale turnouts from articles in magazines that had been published in the past, the best of which were two articles in the February 1976 issue of Model Railroader, written by Larry Kazoyan and  Gordon Odegard.  Since I wanted my turnouts to be sturdy since they were going to be on portable Ntrak modules, I chose to go with Gordy Odegard's PC Board tie method, rather than Larry Kazoyan's heated Pliobond method.

These articles explain how to build your own track gauges, and I constructed a three-point gauge out of brass before discovering that Railcraft (now Micro Engineering) offered cast metal 3-point gauges and the NMRA had their stainless N-scale NMRA Standards Gage, all of which I still use.

Since not only my own engines and cars, with their cut-down, low-profile flanges (which I made using my lathe) would be running on these Ntrak modules, I figured that NMRA Standards would ensure both uniformity and that most cars and engines of other Ntrak club members, with properly gauged wheelsets, would roll through my hand-made turnouts without any problems at all.  This was a correct assumption, and from both a functional and cosmetic standpoint, my hand-made turnouts, in combination with Railcraft Code70 and Code55 flex, operated just as well as any RTR turnouts on the Ntrak setup, and looked exponentially better, mainly because of the tie spacing and the throwbars I decided to use.

In the years following, I made hundreds of turnouts for myself and others, but I made some significant mistakes along the way that affected both durability and longevity as well as prototypical appearance, so my quest for better looking, more permanent hand-made turnouts was not a smooth road. The two main durability problems were my Code55 throwbars would often break and the flux I chose to use was disastrous!

However, at the present time in my turnout building experience, I am pretty happy with what I've finally arrived at through years of trial and error, and I hope some of my experiences and advice will assist newbies to hand-laying their track and turnouts from making maybe similar errors.

Giving some advice, I have always used paper templates to build my turnouts on, taped to my workbench, that I've drawn or reduced from prototype plans down to N-scale.  I've never felt the need nor necessity of expensive jigs or fixtures because making your own turnouts is NOT rocket science, and after you've built a few using recently purchased, expensive turnout jigs & fixtures, you'll find that you've gained sufficient knowledge to not need them any longer, other than to perhaps speed things up a bit. 

Since each turnout size and/or style needs its own jig/fixture (if they were really absolutely necessary) your monetary outlay would be quite substantial if you decided you needed three or four different sizes of turnouts, or a few sizes of wyes, or curved turnouts, or some three-way turnouts of different sizes and track heights, or any additional type, size, or rail Code of turnout.

I've built many N-scale turnouts in Code70, Code55 and Code40, for use on portable modules or layouts in the past, but I've only used paper templates to do it.  Both Proto87Stores and Fastracks turnout fixtures are not necessary.

Photo (1) - Monolithic Three-Turnouts for UP Emory Siding being built on my workbench using paper templates taped to the bench:


However, I use both Proto87Stores and Fastracks templates quite often when planning and laying up my paper "build" templates.  They are very convenient, even though I stick to several prototype dimensions in my turnouts rather than theirs, or the NMRA's.

Proto87Stores:

I have been highly attracted to some of Proto87Stores etched detail parts, but as has been said in other comments, I've found that many of their details are too small to be handled and applied in a timely manner (I think I'm the originator of the comment about their tie plates being like dandruff flakes!), too small to be actually seen after the turnouts and track have been painted, weathered and ballasted, and only for Code40 rails. I was hopeful about their etched frogs, but they are nearly impossible to solder together, and look strange because all three etched layers are visible.  I have a dozen of them that I'll never use, since it's much easier and quicker to build my own out of rail.

Photo (2) - Proto87Stores Etched #8 Frog showing all three etch layers:


Photo (3) - One of my own Code55 frogs to compare to Proto87's etched frog:


On the other hand, I really like Proto87's etched point rail heel hinges, and I use them on all of my recent turnout builds.  I also am enamored of their Tri-Planed Point Rails, which look very prototypical and eliminate the need for filing away the stock rail feet near the point rail toes.  They're not cheap, and run the cost up per turnout by $10, so I use them only on foreground turnouts.

Photo (4) - Proto87Stores Etched Point Rail Heel Hinges and Tri-Planed Point Rails:


Their etched throwbars are an interesting idea, but require the point rails to not be hinged at their heels, but bent inward at the toes so their throwbars can grip the rail foot at the point rail toes with a spring-like action (they're not actually attached to the point rails toes).  Hard to visualize, not difficult to do, but I prefer actual hinges at the point rail heels, especially when I'm using their expensive Tri-Planed Point Rails.

Photo (5) - Proto87Stores Etched Throwbar Hinges and Etched Point Rail Heel Hinges on the same fret which is ironic because if you use the hinges, the throwbars can't be used:


Lastly, I've found that using the etched turnout hardware and track tie plates isn't worth the effort as they all virtually disappear anyway after painting, weathering and ballasting...with the exception of their Tri-Planed Point Rails and their etched Point Rail Heel Hinges.

Fastracks:

Fastracks has a lot to offer in the way of tools, jigs & fixtures to assist a modeler to both learn how to build turnouts, and to use in actual construction.  Their videos are very good, even though I have different techniques for several of their methods and ways of doing things. Since I long ago acquired or made the tools I need to make both turnouts and hand-laid track, the only items I've bought from Fastracks are rail, rail joiners and Pliobond adhesive and dispensers.

Some of the main problems I perceive with their methodologies are (1) that their turnout fixtures don't allow placing PCB ties in a structurally robust number or location.  For instance, wherever there's a gap to be cut, I always put two PCB ties on either side of it, and I also include a lot of ties to support the frog (probably too many).  Also (2) they don't use PCB headblock ties.  I solder in long PCB headblock ties down at the throwbar with at least one regular tie on either side of the headblock ties to reinforce this area because of the forces involved in mechanically throwing the switch. Fastracks seems to think that only one PCB tie in this location is sufficient and that wooden headblock ties (being purely cosmetic) are all that's necessary. Also, (3) simply soldering on a PCB throwbar is the very weakest way of attaching a throwbar.  I have several ways to attach the point rail toes to a PCB throwbar, but just soldering them on isn't one of them, since, over the years, this area is where the vast majority of durability problems arise when one or both point rail toes breaks off, taking the PCB throwbar's copper cladding with it.

Cost.  Fastracks turnouts are expensive.  Very little is to be saved using all of their fixtures, all of their LASER-cut tie strips, and their LASER-cut PCB ties. All of those convenient things makes a turnout, or track, go down pretty quickly, but really hikes the price up. Additionally, hand-laid trackage is exponentially more expensive than Micro Engineering flex because of the cost of the ties...especially the PCB ties every fifth tie.

Finescale:160 Thoughts and Advice:

As far as going with Finescale:160...it's highly improbable that the effort would be worth it.  First, you'll have to either have the wheelsets for all of your locomotives custom made (or do it yourself if you've got the equipment), as well as wheelsets for all of your cars.  Gotta remember that flanges on prototype rail wheels are a mere 1" tall...that's 0.00625" in N-scale...then, there's flange and tire width to account for.  Second, your clearances on what rail is available in N-scale...which, in reality is HO scale rail, means that the only rail that comes close to prototype rail dimensions is Code40, which is a couple of thousandths of an inch from being just right for A.R.E.A. 131 lb. rail.

Photo (6) - Prototype 131 lb rail dimensions compared to Code40 rail dimensions:


The main problem with Code40 rail is that the railhead is not rounded enough, so the reflection coming off of it makes it look overly wide, when it really isn't.

Luckily, you could use Micro Engineering Code 40 flex for your Finescale:160 track since it has pretty good wood grain tie texture, tieplates on every tie, and overly large (but the best there is in N-scale) spikehead detailing, OR...you could 3D model your own, more accurate tie strips, 3D resin print them and have better-looking tie details than any commercially available RTR N-scale track produced.  Several TRW members are doing the latter, or have done it in the past...or are working on it...including making 3D printed turnout tie parts.  Interestingly, the efforts so far in this realm indicate that most track details, such as tieplate thicknesses and spikehead sizes, need to be at least twice as big in N-scale as is prototypical...just to be seen...and then, there's the "how do you attach the rails to the tie strip" problem. Ed @ednadolski can chime in anytime about this and his efforts to produce what I consider the most prototypical looking N-scale turnouts I've ever seen.

If you don't like the appearance of Micro Engineering's small (but still overly large) spikeheads, you can sand them down for appearance's sake, since clearance isn't going to be a problem with scale-sized 1" deep flanges.  I've done that very thing for clearance's sake on the inside spikeheads, and I like the appearance much better than un-sanded spikeheads.

Photo (7) - Micro Engineering Code40 Flex with sanded-down inside spikeheads on my Emory Center Siding trackage between ME Code55 flex mainlines:


Once upon a time, I considered attempting to go with Finescale:160...BUT, I like big UP steam, big UP diesels and turbines, long trains and getting at least most of my sectional layout finished before I bite the dust.  Although I have very strong rivet-counter tendencies, adding separate minuscule tieplates to each and every tie (thousands of ties) on every stretch of hand-laid track and on every hand-laid turnout...then having to machine all of the wheelsets on every engine and car that would run on my layout (even though I have the equipment to do this)...then, after it's all done...if I ever could get it "all" done...from the photos I take of my layout and equipment, it became pretty evident that having scale flanges/wheel widths and track details/clearances would probably not be even seen in the vast majority of photos and observations I take and make.  And, if I don't notice the difference, or can't see them without wearing my Optivisors, then the result isn't worth the vast extra effort.

End of Part 1

[robert3985]

Part 2 of 2:

Non Finescale:160 Alternatives and NMRA Standards Improvements:

But, that doesn't mean I can't "improve" on my hand-made turnouts.  The ways I do this is I now keep my frog style and dimensions very close to the UP's turnout prototype drawings...which are very detailed.  I also only use two lengths of point rails...both lengths being standard for the trackage in the portion of the UP that I'm modeling.  Gapping my frogs at a prototype length disguises the gaps somewhat, and inserting 0.003" thick brass strips across the inside frog rails' rail feet, makes the frogs look more prototypical, and soldering on embossed brass bolt detail strips  on the sides of the frogs will also help to make them look more prototypical (I haven't done this yet).

Photo ( 8 ) - Prototypical length frog with wing rails much more subtle and smaller than NMRA, or Fastracks standards, as well as standard UP prototype length guardrails:


I also have my own method (complicated of course) of attaching the throwbar to the point rail toes...which looks more prototypical and is much stronger than merely soldering the point rail toes to the PCB throwbar.

Photo (9) - Code55 PCB Turnout w/hinged throwbar, joggled diverging rail, P87 Code55 Tri-Planed Point Rails, Lots of PCB ties:


So, this means that I use NMRA clearances, which are plainly too large for any attempt at Finescale:160 trackage, but I tighten the clearances up...so that the tabs on my NMRA Standards Gage will slide through, but are tight.  One area that I almost always go a bit tighter with the clearances are at the point rail toes at the throwbar.  These are visibly narrower than NMRA standards.  All of this means that all of my equipment MUST be gauged as exactly as I can do it...which means that the vast majority of my engines need at least one wheelset to be brought into compliance before they'll run on my turnouts.  On the plus side, the tight clearances means that when rolling stock and engines are correctly gauged, they roll like silk across my turnouts...a natural result of correctly gauged wheels and minimal turnout clearances.

Other Track and Wheel Thoughts and Improvements:

As for rolling stock tire widths, I am replacing all of my wheelsets with FVM narrow metal wheelsets, which perform just fine on my tight-clearanced turnouts, and look a world better than wider metal or plastic wheelsets. No, it ain't Finescale:160, but it still looks pretty damn good IMO.

I also don't hand-lay very much plain old trackage...unless it's Code40...just because I don't want to bother with sanding down the inside spikeheads so that all of my engines will run on it.  Although my hand-laid Code40 trackage doesn't have any tieplate or spikehead details, I don't miss it, and I almost always use my Park City Branch in Code40 for rolling stock and motive power photography...with my superelevated Echo Curve in Railcraft Code55 in the background.

Photo (10) - Old Hallmark UP Welded Caboose superdetailed into a UP CA-8 posed on hand-laid Code40 PCB (every fifth tie a PCB tie) branchline trackage:


I bought all of Railcraft's PCB tie material when they went out of the PCB turnout building business (their turnouts were really really poorly made), which was a 5" diameter log of 12" sheared tie strips...so I haven't had to purchase any PCB ties for the last 30-something years.  To make construction of your turnouts better, you really should use more PCB ties in their construction, and it's possible (as has been demonstrated in previous replies to this thread) to make your own...OR, maybe there's a source for non-etched, shear-cut ties somewhere in this world today.

Another cost-cutting pointer is to use properly sized Evergreen Styrene strips for ties, scraped with a fine Zona saw blade and an old file card, then de-fuzzed with a soft brass brush from Harbor Freight Tools.  This is what I do on my turnouts, and after painting, ballasting and weathering, they look very nice...just as nice as real wood ones IMO.  I paint mine, I don't stain them.  I also don't gap my PCB ties right down the middle, but I use a fine oval jeweler's file to take off the copper cladding in a much more random way than cutting the gaps right down the middle of every tie.  This eliminates the need to fill the PCB gaps with some type of filler so that the center cut doesn't yell "I"M A PCB TIE!!"

Photo (11) - Filed-off copper cladding on PCB ties and Evergreen Styrene ties "grained" with old Zona fine saw blade, old file card and a brass brush:


Concluding Thoughts:

Lastly, as I always do, I highly recommend using Superior No. 30 Supersafe Soldering Flux...which is self-neutralizing (heat) and 96/4 Tin/Silver solid-core solder, which is 5 to 6 times stronger than regular old tin/lead electrical solder and forms a more conductive joint also, as well as a cleaner joint.  I discovered Superior No. 30 flux decades ago after a disastrous use of "Plumber's Honey" flux, which, even though thoroughly washed off, still ate my PCB ties as well as my cork roadbed after about a year and a half.  Worked great, but I wouldn't want anybody to see their hard work self-destructing after all that time and effort.

So, bringing this loooong epistle to an end, I'll suggest to the OP that Finescale:160 is a worthy goal, but the efforts needed to achieve it will be onerous, expensive and extremely time consuming with the results not being nearly obvious enough to justify the trouble.  This is my opinion, but, giving it a try would definitely be fun, starting on a small layout or diorama first, a single engine and few cars.

Learning to hand-lay N-scale turnouts without expensive fixtures is easy to do, but takes persistence and the knowledge that the first few turnouts you build aren't going to be to your satisfaction.  Nowadays, the monetary savings you could once expect has been minimized by the disappearance of one of the essential items needed for turnout construction...the PCB ties, with Fastracks having a virtual monopoly on that product and using an expensive production method to produce them. 

However, in the end, the satisfaction I get from seeing my trains run smooth as silk through the turnouts I've built on my bench, more than offsets the time I spend making them, especially when I need a #8, a #6 and a #4.5 Wye for an entrance to one of my center-sidings, and I can pop both ends out on a weekend from inception thru installation knowing I could never have this combination of turnouts if I didn't build them myself because only the #6 is commercially available.

Photo (12) - East end of Emory Center Siding on one of my unfinished Echo Canyon layout sections waiting for paint, weathering, ballast and scenery...and installation of the West End:


EDIT: Upon proofreading both parts 1 and 2, it struck me that Finescale:160 is more than merely wheels and track, but other details too.  In 1:160th scale, there are inevitably going to be compromises to be made because some prototypically correctly scaled-down parts simply might not be functional, or be too small to be noticed.  In my "tight NMRA" turnout standards with relevant departures on turnout parts and sizes, the only "standards" I have kept are the wheel and flange clearances, which includes the check gauge and the track gauge.  The frog dimensions, guardrail dimensions, tie size and spacing, turnout overall dimensions, diverging route radius, closure point rail length, how the point rail toes fit against unmodified stock rails, how the guardrails are bent, how the frog's wing rails are tapered, the point rail heels having hinges, the straight section of rail on the diverging route starting where the point rail toe hits the diverging stock rail and ends directly across from the heel hinges, and in Code40, even the rail height and dimensions are very close to scaled-down 131 lb prototype rail.  All I'm giving up are the flange width clearances.  That's only a single compromise.  On the engines and rolling stock, low profile, narrow tires on some wheelsets are still quite a bit too large, but a drastic improvement in appearance from "normal" tire and flange proportions...which is one more compromise. With the introduction of at least two scale-sized working couplers in N-scale (True-Scale and N-possible) and a plethora of etched and formed metal parts on a lot of rolling stock, and superdetailed engines from a few manufacturers, we're getting pretty close to Finescale:160...with only a few compromises if we're picky.  It really is the "golden age" in many ways for N-scale, and the products keep getting better and better with some of them so "good" that they have a difficult time running on some turnouts that were designed back in the 20th century with overly generous clearances to compensate for products that were distinctly toy-like.

In any case, have FUN!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[craigolio1]

Bob, that was a ton of good info. I too am battling handmade turnouts for the first time. I bought a couple of C55 turnouts from eBay years ago and they were made using fast tracks jigs. They were built a little loose and I was having issues with wheels dropping into the gaps in the frogs. I had posted a thread about possibly needing to go to a fine scale standard as well but was educated on how to fix what was really the issue. I’ve since used fastrax jigs to build a few C40 turnouts but have found they still need fixing…. Which I have yet to do… and some of the issues are things you’ve written about here. For example I need to beef them up with additional PC ties.

I am of the feeling that the next ones I build will be done free hand on paper templates, but still using the Fastracks filing tools to make points and frogs. This way I can control the tolerances as I build instead of having to fix them. I think it will actually be faster. And as you pointed out… it bent be stuck with the one size of jig I have.

Craig.

[ednadolski]

These articles explain how to build your own track gauges

@robert3985 would you care to elaborate [1]?   I'm building some stuff in Z scale and finding that gauges are basically non-existent, so that sort of info would be really helpful for me.

Also hoping you are feeling better soon.

Thanks,
Ed

[1] in another thread perhaps, rather than go too OT here

[jagged ben]

That sucks if proto87 isn't actually taking orders anymore.  I wanted to try their points and point hinges on my next turnouts.

All I have to add to the discussion otherwise is that it isn't either/or.  I build turnouts with Fast Tracks tools but I depart from their method at certain points. 

[mmagliaro]

Whether or not FastTracks jigs and fixtures are "expensive" is really a function of how many turnouts you have to make, and how many different types.    It's about $150 for a #6 jig.    With commercial turnouts going for $20+, that's 7-1/2 turnouts.    And yes, you have to buy rail and ties, and it takes some time.   But my experience with ready-made turnouts is that they take so much
time to hone, shim, wire-jumper, and otherwise make them "street ready", that I'd rather just build one myself and be done with it.

So let's say you have to be making 10 turnouts to be even-up on the cost.
If you need two different types, or three, now it starts really adding up.

But if I had it to do over, and didn't want to go it on my own with just paper templates, I would STILL use FastTracks.
I'd rather spend $450 on 3 different jigs to make 10 turnouts than spend $200 to buy Atlas C55 ready-made turnouts.
Jig-made turnouts really are that much better.

I AM with Robert3985 100% on FastTracks jigs not having enough spots in their jig design for soldered PCB ties.   In fact, on the jig I bought to make my curved turnout, I put that puppy under my mill and cut extra slots in it to put 2 extra PCB ties at the end by the point rails, and 2 extra PCB ties along the long expanse of curved rails so they turnout would always hold its shape.

[PRRS]

Could not agree more about the Fast Tracks jigs.  Why they haven't updated their tooling to include the extra PCB ties is quite a glaring omission.  I guess they feel that by using their QuickSticks in combination with ballasting that it's not necessary.  I always add the extra PCB ties past the frog and around the points sometimes.

I think down the road I will try more "freehand" building of turnouts in place.  It just opens up so many more possibilities with layout/track design.

Thank you for the tip on solder/flux...I'll have to try that.

By they way...anyone ever use Blue Ridge Turnout jigs?  They are half the cost of Fast Tracks...but they are resin/3D printed:

https://www.blueridgetrax.com/

[Chris333]

By they way...anyone ever use Blue Ridge Turnout jigs?  They are half the cost of Fast Tracks...but they are resin/3D printed:

https://www.blueridgetrax.com/

Says they are made of GPO-3 Red Laminate.