Author Topic: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...  (Read 17872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

strummer

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 998
  • Respect: +65
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #105 on: March 13, 2018, 03:32:24 PM »
0
Thanks. I just ordered (2). Not many parts available for this engine. I can only hope that by listing it as "revised", it will have the finer wheel flange.
Mark in Oregon

Parts arrived today. Am very pleased with Kato's service...

Mark in Oregon

robert3985

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3126
  • Respect: +1502
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #106 on: March 14, 2018, 01:49:52 PM »
0
dang, this is impressive work guys..  I may start trying my hand at hand-laying the entire turnout.  I've been thinking about it for a while.

Funny, as I was updating my atlas turnout, i did wonder about the tension on the points, with the lack of hinging.   I think I'll try the rail-joiner hinge method next time.

@robert3985, I noticed you don't notch your outer rails for the points.  less work, obviously, and no issues with flanges riding up onto the point? 

 

@diezmon , Thanks!  Others call me "The Track Nazi" so your positive comments are appreciated!

As for my points and the adjacent stock rail relationship on my switches.  Nope, I don't mess with notching the stock rails because for the last three years, I use Proto87 Store's 3-Way Planed Nickel Silver Points, which have an undercut rail foot that fits over the adjacent stock rail's foot and works just like the real deal (which doesn't have any notches in the stock rails).  You can get them for $9.95 each if you want to use them.  Nope, they're not necessary unless you want a more realistic looking switch on your turnout.  They're available here:  http://www.proto87.com/product1932.html    It's not a matter of "less work", it's a matter of "it's not necessary" any longer.  My other, more conventional turnouts still have "normal" model railroad switch points and adjacent stock rails, so they ARE notched...but trains run through them equally smoothly...the turnouts just don't look as prototypical.

When I figure out how to make "Tri-Planed Points" myself, I'll stop buying them because at ten bucks a turnout, they nearly negate the cost savings of making your own, although no commercial turnouts that I know of have points that are planed like the real deal.

Nope...I don't have any problems whatsoever with properly gauged motive power or cars doing anything except rolling smoothly through my turnouts like a silk scarf.  Once ya get the hang of it, and check your clearances correctly when making your own turnouts, smooth running becomes the norm, and it certainly isn't rocket science.

I went to the Fast Tracks website just to see what's goin' on there.  Got some nice stuff there, but...it really hikes the price per turnout up.  However, I enjoyed the videos, and the owner's home layout is quite the accomplishment with some of the most intricate and complicated hand-laid track I've ever seen.  Take a peek: http://www.bronx-terminal.com/

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 02:10:12 PM by robert3985 »

robert3985

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3126
  • Respect: +1502
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #107 on: March 14, 2018, 03:04:30 PM »
0
I have been building my C55 turnouts using a couple of Fast Tracks jigs.  I have decided to go with the solid closure rails instead of hinged ones.  With the Fast Tracks jigs, the S tie is further back than the H tie.  In your experience, do you think the solder joints will fail over time?  The S tie is closer to the frog than the H tie.  I have built about 60 of these, but have yet to install them on my new layout.

Thanks,

Scott

@sschnabl Scott, my experience with a "rigid parallelogram" being formed between solidly-soldered-point-toes/PCB-throwbar/notch-hinges/soldered-PCB-tie-at-the-point-heels is more like if your "solid closure rails" were being soldered at the "H" tie.  I looked at the longer distance the "H" tie (specifically placed there for HINGED points which you are not using) is from the throwbar in the Fast Tracks instructional videos where they are using code 83 rail in HO scale. (I realize the "S" tie is for "Solid" closure rails and that's what you've done following Fast Track assembly protocol. 

Tim's demo turnout is equipped with "solid" closure rails and he mentions the torque on the throwbars, and references some hinged throwbars he made for his exceptionally short point rails on his home layout's custom trackwork. So, he is definitely aware that there "could be" problems in HO scale, but says that hinges are not as quick.

I was quite impressed with the thought he has put into his fixtures and tools, especially when precise placement is necessary.  The potential problem I see (please note the word "potential") is that Code 55 rail is proportionally thicker in N-scale than Code 83 is in HO scale.  AND, the distance between the throwbar and PCB tie "S" in N-scale is less than half the distance between the same elements in HO scale, so more stress (torque) is going to be put on the N-scale Code 55 point toes than the equivalent in HO scale with Code 83 rails using solid closure rails.

That said, I am going to assume that IF there was a persistent problem with N-scale Code 55 point toes breaking using the N-scale Fast Tracks assembly fixture, and soldering solid closure rails at PCB tie "S", then we would probably know about it, and so would owner Tim Warris, and he'd fix the problem.

If it were me, and I was mainly concerned about lessening potential future problems with my turnouts breaking at the point toes on the throwbar sometime down the road, I would use hinged points...and follow Fast Tracks' instructions on how to create them, which appears to be fairly simple.  So simple in fact, that a little more time spent doing it is well worth it to ensure future reliability.

If I were interested in BOTH lessening future problems at the throwbar AND more prototypical looks, I'd use Proto87 Stores Point Heel Hinges, instead of shortened rail joiners, and make the point rails (the switch) the correct length for my size turnout...which is 11 feet long for #6 or less, 16'6" for #7, #8, #9 and #10, 22' for #11, #12 etc...moving PCB tie "H" according to where the point heel hinges were located.  I'd also use PCB ties as headblocks on either side of the throwbar to add strength to that vital area, and put another PCB tie directly under the point of the frog.

Although the Fast Track protocol is pretty good and well thought out, it is designed to save some money by using a bare minimum of PCB ties, and to uncomplicate fabrication by totally eliminating the straight switch section on the diverging stock rail which abruptly angles off for a little more than the length of the switch rails on prototype turnouts.  I'm sure that most model railroaders don't even know about it, but IMO it is part of what makes a model turnout look prototypical, although it doesn't have any effect on operation until you start making turnouts in excess of #9's.

So, you're probably gonna be okay with soldering your solid closure rails at PCB tie "S"...probably.  I still feel some doubt, but logically, I think if it were a problem, Fast Tracks would have addressed it...and they haven't...and they've been around long enough.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 02:21:56 PM by robert3985 »

sschnabl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +19
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #108 on: March 15, 2018, 01:22:12 PM »
0
Sorry for the thread drift...

@robert3985 Thank you Bob for the reply.  I certainly have some things to think about moving forward.  Better now than after the track is installed and ballasted.

Scott

strummer

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 998
  • Respect: +65
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #109 on: March 15, 2018, 01:32:11 PM »
0
FWIW...

I just installed another Atlas #7 ("6.3"  :) ) with Caboose Industries ground throw,  and due to the fact that I have been re-gauging my engines, this new turnout works just fine...

Mark in Oregon

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4973
  • Better modeling through peer pressure...
  • Respect: +1530
    • Modutrak
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #110 on: March 15, 2018, 03:58:31 PM »
0
Over the three decades or so that I've been making and installing hand-laid turnouts in N-scale, using C70, C55 and C40 rail, the one place in their construction that has given me the most problems from a breakage aspect is where the point toes attach to the PCB throwbar.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Post of the year.  You laid out everything I've seen in practice. 

The thing continuous points have over hinged points, is unwavering electrical continuity.  So allowing some movement in the throwbar connection seems necessary if you want to keep that on the "ideal" mass-manufacturered turnout. 

Or, insert the hinges, which are more prototypical too, and somehow jumper wire between stock and point rail, or closure and point rail.

bdennis

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 557
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +172
    • Delaware & Hudson Champlain Division
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #111 on: March 15, 2018, 05:04:08 PM »
0
I have built over 100 FastTracks turnouts and I use the solid rail design using the FastTracks #6 jig.
I have modified the design slightly where as I file the lower side of both point rails between where the point rail makes contact with the stock rail and the S tie on the jig. This enables the rail to "flex" better thus reducing the stress on the solder joints that hold the point rails.
I also add an extra copper tie to the point rails, so that there are 4 solder joints holding the point rails rather than just 4. This also reduces / eliminates the possibility of failure.
I also use a HO tie for the cross bar for the turnout machine to ensure that the throw bar does not break due to the hole needed for the turnout machine.

These are built and ready for pre weathering before they are installed. In the picture there is tape between the stock rail and point rail to limit the paint getting in and "sticking" the point rails.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 05:14:46 PM by bdennis »
Brendan Dennis
N scale - Delaware & Hudson Champlain Division

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #112 on: March 16, 2018, 01:21:26 AM »
0
About six months ago I fixed a #5 switch that had a point rail falling out.  The fix was a one piece rail salvaged from a piece of code 55 flex track, notched at the hinge point, pretty much as described here by others.  The only real difference was that I didn't replace the tie bar but basically duplicated the original small attachment plate and assembled as the original. 

This was accomplished by cutting the rail to length, notching the top and bottom faces in to the thickness of the rail web to make the hinge/ flex point, and then, before to file the point rail taper, I soldered a blanked piece of .005" strip to the rail bottom.  The little plate was not drilled yet, the length was oversized, and the rail was still full width.  That made positioning to solder very easy as only the position at the end of the rail was critical and even that had some fudge room.  I tinned the bottom of the rail and the top of the plate and then soldered in place.  I had a resistance solder unit and used the tweezer attachment which I feel makes it easier but could be accomplished just as well with virtually any solder rig.  Once soldered all of the filing of the rail point and trimming of the attachment plate was completed with the bar as one piece with the rail, using the old point rail as the model.  Once the filing was completed the new rail piece and old point rail were set on a flat surface with the attachment tabs facing back to back and the attaching plate hole was drilled with the drill gripped in a pin vise and using the original hole as the guide, like a drill bushing.  The finished replacement rail assembly was then slid into the ties, a couple of drops of CA on a few of the plastic pins to assure it stayed in place and then a small dab of solder was used from the rail foot to the phosphor bronze hinge point contact plate, ahead of the filed hinge notches, to assure a good connection.  It has worked flawlessly and was all done without removing the switch from the layout.  A little neolube was used to touch up the color on all of the new components.  All of this work was actually pretty easy to complete as described.

In these pics it's the right rail point rail that was replaced.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 01:34:48 AM by narrowminded »
Mark G.

C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10869
  • Respect: +2418
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #113 on: March 16, 2018, 10:01:42 PM »
+1
The Fast Tracks points tool arrived Wednesday, and with a slight twist on @Mark W 's concept think I have something that will work:



What is different is most evident in the second shot. Instead of removing the circuit bridges from the stock rails to the hinge and replacing with a PC board, I kept it as made and soldered the bottom of the point rails to the eyelets remaining from the hinge. As surmised, the PCB throwbar vastly improved the servo linkage situation.

While I still need a little more practice with the points tool, tests rolling a car through were all good. I wasn't a fan of the floppy points, and so what if solid points rails aren't proto, I think the result is attractive and a damnsight smoother in use. I'll take it.
...mike

http://www.gibboncozadandwestern.com

Note: Images linked in my postings are on an HTTP server, not HTTPS. Enable "mixed content" in your browser to view.

There are over 1000 images on this server. Not changing anytime soon.

wazzou

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6729
  • #GoCougs
  • Respect: +1655
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #114 on: March 16, 2018, 10:42:43 PM »
0
Do you think those joints will hold well Mike?
Bryan

Member of NPRHA, Modeling Committee Member
http://www.nprha.org/
Member of MRHA


C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10869
  • Respect: +2418
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #115 on: March 16, 2018, 10:59:13 PM »
0
I'm not concerned about the eyelet/rail joins at all, they're not stressed, it's just to assure electrical continuity where there was already reasonable contact that might have had problems in the far future (hidden oxidation).

The throwbar, as Bob mentioned, is this design's weak area. Normal 63/37 solder in this test, but I may move up to something silver-bearing for better hardness and strength.
...mike

http://www.gibboncozadandwestern.com

Note: Images linked in my postings are on an HTTP server, not HTTPS. Enable "mixed content" in your browser to view.

There are over 1000 images on this server. Not changing anytime soon.

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5393
  • Respect: +1961
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #116 on: March 16, 2018, 11:07:32 PM »
0
On the few Atlas turnouts I had to fix, I've used an HO :o sized fat tie for the throwbar for a better structural connection. These are just long enough to extend under the stocktrails when thrown in either direction and when Neolubed, blend in adequately. (I also use it on hand builts and haven't had one fail yet).
Otto K.

nickelplate759

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3335
  • Respect: +1039
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #117 on: November 07, 2024, 05:35:55 PM »
0
I know this is an old thread, but it seems like the best spot to ask...

I'm curious about the geometry of the Atlas Code 55 wyes.   They offer a "#2.5" and "#3.5".   Oddly, the #3.5 is shorter than the the #2.5.  I'm assuming those are nominal frog numbers in any event, and it looks like the angles of the #3.5 mesh nicely with the #7 switch.   I'd really like one that meshes nicely with #10, but ....

So - is the #3.5 effectively the curved portion of two Atlas #7 switches overlaid?
And yes, I know that the #7 switch isn't exactly a #7.
And yes, I also know if I lay my own switch I can get any # I want.

George
NKPH&TS #3628

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

John

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 13394
  • Respect: +3255
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #118 on: November 07, 2024, 06:14:25 PM »
0
I believe @Cory Rothlisberger did the design work on these?  He might know the answer

nkalanaga

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9896
  • Respect: +1446
Re: Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...
« Reply #119 on: November 08, 2024, 01:46:20 AM »
0
George:  As far as I know, yes.  In any case, the Ys are designed to match the regular turnouts, whether the curves are exactly the same or not.
N Kalanaga
Be well