Question for track hand layers

[robert3985]

I don't understand why several posters keep saying that the point rails are the same length on the switches.  The posted image from the "Engineering and Maintenance of way Cyclopedia" clearly says that point rails ("switch rails") are 11'0" for #6, 16'6" for #s 7, 8 and 10, 22'0" for #11, and 30'0" for #s 16 and 20.  My similar drawings from the B&O show 11'0" for #s 4 and 5, but 13'0" for #6, 15' for #7, 16'6" for #s 8 and 10, 24' for #16, and 30'0" for #20.

So, there is a clear trend for the point rails to be longer for the higher number switches, which means that the point rail angles are clearly smaller for the higher number switches.  But, it is also clear that there are ranges where the same point rail length is used for several adjacent switch numbers, and that those ranges vary from one railroad to another - for instance the Cyclopedia showing 11' for #6 while the B&O shows 13'0".  And, the Cyclopedia shows 16'6" for #7s while the B&O shows 15'0".  So, there is obviously a range of point rail lengths and thus point angles, for the same switch number on various railroads.  And, one railroad may have longer point rails than another railroad for one switch number and shorter for another switch number.

So, I think that Mark is on the right track to use a single point rail length for a family of N scale switches that I would characterize as "medium", say 15' for #s 6, 7 and 8.  But, I think those will start looking too sort around #8, and that #10s and larger will need longer point rails to look right.  And, if he is going to make #4s or #5s, a point rail about 11" would look more prototypical and make the curve between the hinge and frog less sharp.

Point rail angles on the models are a somewhat different matter.  Our models probably don't really need the tight match to the stock rails that the prototype needs for the purpose of supporting weight - although with code 40 rail, I am not sure of that.  And maybe there is also a side-force issue with code 40 rail that needs to be considered to make sure that the point rails don't get pushed out of gauge when something like an x-8-x or x-10-x steamer goes through.  But, if not needed for strength in the models, then it might be reasonable to use smaller point angles (that can fit larger switch numbers) on shorter switches, if that is a benefit to the manufacturing process.

Has anybody here made code 40 N scale turnouts, before?  I see that Fast Tracks has jigs for them.

Part of the "problem" that Mark is having is that he's thinking of producing C40 and (I hope) C55 point rails, so he's thinking not just of how the prototype does their point rails and how they appear, he's also thinking of how to produce them in N-scale in a timely and consistent manner.

As many of us here would like, I would like to see the point rails made so that there doesn't need to be any modification to the adjacent stock rails as is "normal" in building N-scale turnouts...meaning the stock rail's foot is filed away so the non-prototypically filed/machined point rails (bent slightly and filed flat on the surface that bears against the adjacent stock railhead).  This makes for a prototypically appearing switch, especially if a prototype method for throwing and hinging the point toes that isn't overly complicated can be realized.

Let me address the differences between the tri-planed (as Proto87Stores calls them) point rails and the flat-filed point rails are, and the advantages and disadvantages of both. Let's start with the traditional flat-filed point rails:

Advantages are: (1) They're easy for a modeler to make with no need for a milling setup...just a rotary grinder equipped with a sanding disc, a new, sharp flat file, and flat-nose pliers.  In C40, they're particularly easy to make because there is a lot less material to remove than C55 equivalents.  (2) They don't need precise measurements, or to hold stringent tolerances to work well...they just need to be smooth and SHARP.  Diverging angle really isn't necessary to measure when filing and sanding them by hand, although the Fast Track Point Tool makes the job really easy and much more consistent. (3) Down at the switch headblock ties, the point rail toe's inside railfoot offers a flat surface to bear against headblock tie top surfaces and gives the point rail toes stability when fabricating a hinge.

Disadvantages are: (1) They require that the inside rail foot on the adjacent stock rail be removed ideally so the new rail foot edge protrudes exactly the same distance from the rail centerline as the inside edge of the rail head.  However, most modelers remove too much "just to be sure" which doesn't affect functionality...only appearance if you're directly overhead or looking closely at the switch portion of your hand-laid turnout.

For prototypically milled (or tri-planed) point rails:

Advantages are: (1) They don't require any modification to the adjacent stock rail's foot (2) The adjacent stock rail looks more prototypical when looked at from directly overhead or closely (3) If purchased already properly machined, they speed up turnout construction since no mods to the adjacent rail feet are necessary.

Disadvantages are: (1) They require precise machining/filing to mate to the adjacent stock rail's rail foot angled top surface. (2) They require the railhead on the point rail to be tapered so it doesn't protrude above the adjacent stock rail's rail head top surface. (3) Making these at home is probably beyond the capability of most hobbyists without machining equipment and manufacturing experience.  (4) The underside of the rail foot at the point toes down at the headblock is either not there or almost not there, making hinging and vertically securing problematic. (5) If purchased ready-made, they are expensive at $10 per switch, greatly negating one of the main advantages of making your own turnouts...that being lower cost.

General observations are that although tri-planed point rails look GREAT, seeing that the adjacent stock rail foot isn't filed away is only evident if specifically looking for it, meaning looking down from directly overhead...and it really isn't very evident..especially if your turnout is painted, weathered and ballasted.

Soooo....are "tri-planed" point rails worth the effort?  Good question.  For me, they are in C55, but I need to detail their rail webs out with bolt-head embossings/etchings as well as the same at the frog and guard rails...as well as a near-prototype looking throwbar and switchstand to justify them....all of which I am doing on my new-construction turnouts.  However, I could do the same thing with detailing out "normal" flat-filed point rails.  For C40 turnouts...I think I probably feel the same way.  It's really an emotional decision, not supported by accompanying logic.

The one problem has been all the other turnout details missing on hand-laid C40 and C55 PCB turnouts, which Mark's proposed turnout tie bases will solve in one fell swoop...if he doesn't decide to just offer built-up turnouts...which I would buy...even if they were premium priced since they would be better than what I can build right now with his machining expertise and production experience.

The only thing I wouldn't get from using his turnouts would be the self-satisfaction of knowing I'd built them myself...and that's a small price to pay.

As for different length point rails...I think that two lengths for turnouts  between #6's and #12's would do the job.  Shorter point rails for #4's and #5's.

As for the question if anybody here has made C40 turnouts before...I've made a LOT of 'em as my Park City Branch and yard, along with industrial trackage are all PCB C40 trackage, with a few sections of Rail-Craft C40 and Micro Engineering C40 flex, with filed-down inner spike heads.

Several things become evident when building C40 turnouts.  The first thing is that they're much easier to make since there's a lot less material to remove when filing rails.  The next thing is that they're just as durable, and in some cases MORE durable than C55 turnouts.  I don't consider any parts on my C40 turnouts to be "fragile" and I certainly don't take any special care when moving my layout sections with C40 track laid on them when attending shows.

My C40 turnouts are all built to my previous turnout standards, which from both a durability and appearance aspect, aren't as good as my newest turnout standards which all of my C55 mainline turnouts are now built to.  I have a major industrial complex, a mainline center siding, one siding at Devils Slide Station which the Ideal Concrete Plant spur diverges from, as well as a MOW spur off the west-bound mainline...all of which (excluding mainlines and mainline turnouts) will be C40...using Mark's tie strips.  If Mark would also do C55 tie strips, I'd use them for my mainlines too in this 30+ feet of LDE, which is pretty strictly a model of a specific UP prototype location in 1952 between Devils Slide and Wilhemina Pass (including both locations).  All turnouts will be built using my new standards, which include tri-planed closure points, prototype appearing hinged point rail toes, embossed/etched point rail web N/B details, N/B frog rail web details and lost-wax cast brass UP prototype switch stands, with moving target when switches are aligned by under-layout Tortoises.  If Mark's turnout bases are ready (or turnouts), I'll use them for the mainline and foreground turnouts, but not for buried turnouts inside the Ideal Concrete Plant's fence.

Here are a few photos of C40 turnouts on my Park City Branch's yard:









Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Maletrain]

Really nice looking track work there, Bob!

Glad to hear that code 40 turnouts don't have problems with being more fragile than code 55.  Although I am still wondering about how to make realistic but strong throw bars.  How do you throw your code 40 turnouts?  Do you have to be careful when adjusting your machines to not pop your throw bars loose?  I use servos, but I wonder about Tortoise machines, too.

[robert3985]

Really nice looking track work there, Bob!

Glad to hear that code 40 turnouts don't have problems with being more fragile than code 55.  Although I am still wondering about how to make realistic but strong throw bars.  How do you throw your code 40 turnouts?  Do you have to be careful when adjusting your machines to not pop your throw bars loose?  I use servos, but I wonder about Tortoise machines, too.

@Maletrain Thanks!  When I look closely at 'em, which I laid over 35 years ago, I'm not happy with their appearance, especially at the throwbars.

Throwbars for hand-laid turnouts are their weak point, and simply soldering the point rail toes to a PCB tie isn't optimal for reliability over time.

I use Tortoises underneath all of my turnouts to throw them, and I fabricate a stiffer operating rod with a .020" 1/4" section at the top ground down to fit a corresponding hole in a PCB throwbar between the headblocks on my turnouts.

I've tried several ways of hinging the point rails at their heels, and I like Proto87Stores point rail heel hinges the best because they correctly position the closure rail next to their adjacent stock rails and form a hinge that both flexes radially and allows the point rails to slide back and forth.

If you hinge your point rail heels with a hinge that allows the rails to slide a bit back and forth as well as rotate radially, you can solder your point rail toes to an N-scale tie positioned between two headblock ties as your throwbar, and this arrangement will work pretty well.  Such a point rail heel hinge is available from Proto87Stores and I really like them.  But, you can also use a cut-down rail joiner like Micro Engineering does.

i find that side-to-side force that my Tortoises generate as they stall doesn't break the solder joint at the throwbar.

However, I also like notch-hinges at the point rail heels, which are made by using a file to notch the rail so only a slim portion of the rail web is holding the rail together...which forms a "hinge" at that point and retains the alignment of the rails as well as provides excellent durability and electrical conductivity.  However, this hinge doesn't allow a back and forth slippage of the point rails, only radial rotation.  On my future turnouts, both C40 and C55, I'll be using a combination of the Proto87Stores point rail heel hinge for positioning the closure rails quickly and realistically, but the hinge being a non-slipping-back-and-forth notch hinge.

Using notch hinges for their alignment, durability and electrical conductivity makes it absolutely necessary to create a hinged joint for attaching the point rail toes to a PCB throwbar between PCB headblocks.

I've posted the following photos before, I'll post them here for convenience...

Photo (1) - How to make throwbar hinges and reliably attach C55 and C40 point rail toes to a PCB throwbar:


This works well with the Proto87Stores "tri-planed" point rails, and I don't see any reason that it won't work just fine with "normal" flat-filed point rails.

Photo (2) - Hinged C55 PCB throwbars Top View:


Photo (3) - Hinged C55 PCB throwbars Bottom View:


Photo (4) - Tortoises underneath with thicker actuator wires:


Drilling the tiny holes in the angled rail foot on the inside of the point rail toes is impossible for me to get drilled in exactly the same spot every time, so my directions solve that problem and if followed in chronological order, will give you correct spacing between point rail toes and the adjacent stock rails.

My collaboration with Mark @narrowminded  has got me thinking of how to produce realistic looking, durable and quickly installed throwbars by 3D printing them instead of having to bend up wire, shape it,  and solder it to PCB throwbars.  We'll see if anything comes of it.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore 

[narrowminded]

This is moving along nicely.  I now won't get fixture machine time until the first week in February, which is fine.  While these fixtures could be made in manual machines it will be sooo much easier to use a real production CNC machine, programmed using Mastercam (another time saver), for as many as are needed.  They would require a lot of involved setups in a manual machine.  The fancy equipment (but very expensive) eats up parts like this. 

There will be 32 machined parts just for code 40 and code 55 frogs, not counting 64 dowel pins.  Probably six more for point rails, this far, and then another dozen or so soldering fixtures.  But access to the proper machines will condense producing these parts to a few days, what could be weeks if performed with all manual machining.  This access delay gives me a little more desk time now so maybe I will get some drawings done for more track options and working out some specific turnout details (like point rail lengths and angles).  

I have a couple of ideas for the throw bars and will be trying some of those ideas soon.  I don't think just prints will be adequate but are likely to be used as a part of the assembly, helping to include some details not currently available.  They are really small in true scale but may be able to be made acceptable, hopefully better than what's out there.  As Robert said, this is a real tough piece of the whole project if it's going to be better than basically another moving tie with big (scale) holes in it while not costing two arms and two legs.    

Thanks again to all who have shown interest and added to the discussion.

[narrowminded]

@robert3985 , I will be doing code 55 mainline track as I share the interest you have in using it as another visible difference point for main, to branch, to siding.  I might have two different tie sizes as was previously discussed.  Want to lay claim to one?   Maybe 9"x 7" with 9' length?  Or 8.5' length?

I already have code 55 to code 40 adaption strips for transitioning from 55 to 40, track or turnouts, if that will be helpful.  They are made with branch tie spacing but others could be made.  These have .011" rail height transition built in, dropping the first code 40 section from the adapted code 55 height down to code 40 height.  This occurs over a 2" distance including the two ties engaging the code 55, and carries on from there at standard code 40 height.