Tehachapi, BC

[MichaelWinicki]

I really like that P87 frog.

If I were going to handlay, I'd be using that.

I don't think there's a perfect solution out there when it comes to points.  They all have issues.

I've had FT turnouts made for me with the long points and eventually the ends of the points broke free from the throw-bar due to the stress.

The P87 and Atlas points have the "hinge" area which can be problematic, but I know if you simply use a little silicon on the ring holding everything together underneath the hinge, that the potential for future problems is greatly alleviated. 

I had a 3-way switch made for me using the FT method and rail joiners were used to secure the points to the frogs and after about a year of use, the buggers loosened up enough that my points shifted enough to cause a problem.

I also like the little notch in the stock rail the Atlas switches have which allows the points to slighly recede into the stock rail– great for eliminating point picking issues.

[GaryHinshaw]

Michael - I agree with all of your comments.  No solution is perfect, but I do like these P87 frogs a lot and plan to stick with them.

To follow-up on Skibbe's comments: he's correct, of course, that the wheel tread should ideally ride the wing rail until it hits the frog point.  That is not happening with my FT frog. Bear with me one more time as I post yet more crappy photos of frogs that have been abused in the name of science.

Here is a close-up of the FT frog flange-ways, which actually match the NMRA gauge quite well:



The wheel drop problem lies in the gap between the closure rails ahead of the frog:



The fine tuning required is to reduce that gap while maintaining alignment of the closure and frog rails on both routes.

For comparison, the flange-ways on the P87 frog are slightly narrow:



The closure rail gap is also narrower than in my FT frog:



I have yet to find a non-pizza-cutter wheel that has a problem with this flange-way (though I don't have guard-rails installed yet).  One more thing: the flange-way depth on the P87 is slightly deeper than the NMRA gauge which, in turn, is deeper than the BLMA flange.  So the BLMA wheels are not bottoming out in this frog.  I stand corrected.

-gfh

[Guilford Guy]

IIRC shapeways can print or mill conductive material. I can't imagine a frog is very difficult to draw in a cad program?

[Coxy]

Gary, Is there a reason you are opening up the flangeways at the frog? If you can go with in spec flangeways, a lot of your wheel drop problems should go away.

I find I get best results at the frog with the FT turnouts if I push the frog rails as far along as possible toward the wing rails. Pushing the frog rails closer to the wing rails yields a frog that is in spec but with a much smaller gap for wheels to traverse from wing to frog rail or vice versa. This is something that FT recommends so I always did it that way.

I see in your photo there is a couple thou gap between the base of the frog rails and the base of the wing rails, especially on the right side in the photo.

The right hand wing appears to be slightly under bent as well which could lead to a narrow flangeway if the frog rails were moved toward the points slightly. It's a bit of a fiddle, but worth it once you find your groove (bad pun )

Cheers,
Coxy

[ednadolski]

FWIW, I ran into a problem with wheel drop at the frog with some HO code 88 wheels, which have a more narrow tread than the 'standard' HO code 110 wheels.  One thing that helped was filling in the frog flangeways with some QuickSteel [1], and then run a metal-wheeled truck thru the flangeways to form the path.  Once the QS hardens, the wheels will ride on the flanges without dropping.

If you have wheels with different sized flanges, then use the largest ones.  The smaller flange wheels may still drop, but only by the difference in the flange size.  Conversely, you don't want to run anything with a larger flange thru the filled frog, as that will cause the wheel tread to lift off the railhead.

Altho I did HO, I don't see any reason why it should not scale down to N.  Might be an option for cases where a P:87 milled frog isn't available, i.e. a different size or a curved frog.

(Gary -- Polly Scale RR Tie Brown?  I'm having a V8 moment, LOL!) 

Ed

[1] http://www.drillspot.com/products/514512/cargo_quiksteel_16002_tube_metal_epoxy_putty

[James Costello]

Here's some appropriate track building inspiration for you Gary - 18 January 2005.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8265399@N05/sets/72157630601091854/

[GaryHinshaw]

They say the third time is a charm.  I finally have a turnout that I think will be a keeper:



with points that I think will stand the test of time:



It's really striking how much longer this #10 is than a stock Atlas #10:



I also used the previous turnout to verify that, after some more cleanup, a 2nd coat of stain, and some ballast, that the Pliobond and solder blobs basically disappear:



Now it's time to hook it up and test it on the layout.  Single cars run through it very nicely with the 0-5-0, so hopefully this translates to whole trains under power, and breaks the track-laying log jam.

Cheers,
Gary

[GaryHinshaw]

Guilford Guy, thanks for the comments, but I think the P87 frogs are just what I want already.  The simplicity of a 1-piece frog is very alluring.

Coxy, when I made that FT frog (without the fixture) I was just getting tired.  After soldering the closure rails I noticed the gap, but just said f**k it and looked elsewhere.  Now, when I make the P87 turnouts, I glue the rail first (this is possible since the ties are all laid out ahead of time).  This lets me put things in place and tweak them before I vulcanize the glue with heat.  After that I solder to the PC ties.  In the absence of a jig, this gives me much better control.

Ed, have a V8!  It's great!   James, thanks for posting those photos!  I can never have too many reference shots.

-gfh

P.S. Andy got back to me over the weekend.  He said he looked into producing longer points, but that he would have to develop a new tool to do so.  So he graciously declined.   I'm actually quite pleased with how these hinged points worked out, so I'll stick with them.

[Sokramiketes]

P.S. Andy got back to me over the weekend.  He said he looked into producing longer points, but that he would have to develop a new tool to do so.  So he graciously declined.   I'm actually quite pleased with how these hinged points worked out, so I'll stick with them.

That's too bad.  Hopefully you'll be as pleased in the long run electrically as you are currently mechanically.  I suppose there would be a way to put feeders on the point rails but it just seems like a hassle. 

[Coxy]

Looking very good Gary. Post a vid when you get the time. Be nice to see some autoracks and stacks gliding through it. I'm very impressed with the points and throwbar too. Nice job.

[MichaelWinicki]

The points do look much better Gary.

Can you provide a shot of the hinge area?

[kiwi_bnsf]

Hey Gary,

The new turnout looks great! I'm glad you've finally found the best solution - I'm looking forward to seeing track laying progress.

That test ballasted turnout also looks very nice. I hope mine weather up as nicely.

Cheers

Tim

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks guys.  I'll write up some notes with more photos in the Construction forum, mostly for my own future reference, but also to solicit any suggestions for further improvement.  I can post some hinge shots and such there.

Mike, I tried soldering a flexible feeder between the point & closure rails, but I wasn't very happy with the result, so for now I'm relying on mechanical contact.  One thing that gives me hope is that the three ties around the two throwbars are all PC ties that are soldered to the stock rails and exposed to the points.  This gives me three sliding contacts to the bottom of the points, which are bare.  I'm guessing that with the weight of a loco on them, they should make good contact.      Electrical testing is the next step.

-gfh

[ednadolski]

I tried soldering a flexible feeder between the point & closure rails, but I wasn't very happy with the result, so for now I'm relying on mechanical contact.

There are a couple of approaches.  In this case since you don't have a rail joiner, it may be possible to flip the turnout over and solder something underneath the rail base between the point & closure rails (assuming that the ties aren't in the way).  Alternately, it may also be possible to solder a slightly longer wire between the points & stock rails (again presuming that the ties are not in the way; also be careful not to get too much ballast that would inhibit movement.).

For stress testing, the east & west Walong switches might be good locations.  They are on grades and form some S-curve challenges for longer trains.

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

Meanwhile, out on the east slope, ballasting continues...



Nothing glued down (or painted or weathered) yet.  And the signal bridge is a place-holder for this one from Traincat.