@Maletrain - Prototype looking (and functioning) turnout throw rods are a problem in N-scale, which involves some compromises to attempt to achieve a semi-realistic look, and retain function.
Just like scale-sized spike heads and tie plates, at 1:160th scale...a spike head is right at a scale inch high...that's 0.00625" tall...six and a quarter THOUSANDTHS of an inch...and basically is invisible after painting, weathering, ballasting and weathering again...and I'm not even mentioning any actual functionality at a prototype scale dimension. Sooo...IMO, some finer track detailing needs to be two to three time larger to (a) be seen, and (b) retain functionality.
Turnout throw rods are a good example of the above. Frankly, attaching the point rail toes to a PCB tie by soldering...even with silver-bearing solder (6 times stronger than mere lead-tin electrical solder) is close to being sub-par as far as strength and durability are concerned...especially if the point rails are constructed monolithically (no actual sliding hinges at the point rail heels) with the closure rails. Additionally, if the throw rods are a scale 1" in diameter...that 0.00625" diameter is much too small for them to be functional, even using steel wire.
Then, there's the electrical problem...that bridging the two point rails defeats the DCC-Friendly aspect that should ALWAYS be incorporated into our model turnouts...that is, point rails and closure rails must be of the same polarity as their adjacent stock rail so that electrical pickup is improved and absolutely no shorting is possible as long as the engine/cars are not derailed. This means that any metal throw rod that is attached to both point rails, must be gapped.
Additionally, all that microscopic bolt-head detailing and attachment hardware between the point rail toes where it is attached to the middle of the rail web, may very well interfere with N-scale waaayyy oversized flanges...even lo-profile flanges, which are huge compared to the scaled-down prototype flange height of 1" (0.00625")...especially if using Code40 rails, as opposed to Code55 rails for turnout construction.
For myself, I agree that simply having a big PC board...or even a narrow PC board soldered to the rail foot of each point rail toe isn't visually optimal for even a semi-realistic appearance at the throw rod location.
So, what are some possible solutions??
One solution is to make the throw-rods completely cosmetic...non-functional, so they don't have to function at all and are made from plastic rod...or 3D printed with all the minuscule details...but they attach to the point rails much lower than at the middle of the rail web to provide sufficient flange clearance. The actual throw rod would be one of the long headblock ties, with thin Styrene non-moving spacers on either side of the moving headblock tie/throw rod that would have just enough clearance for the throw rod to move unimpeded, and provide a platform for a thin layer of ballast. The plastic/resin cosmetic throw rods, with all of their fragile tiny details, would float over the top of the ballast...just like the real deal. For added throwbar attachment strength, you could even make both headblock ties the throwbar, with the cosmetic, non-functional throw rods attached at their proper spacing. OR, if you want your headblock ties to remain stationary, then make the throw bar/bars from the slightly longer than "normal" ties adjacent to the really long headblock ties...using the Styrene spacers on it/them to apply a thin layer of ballast to.
Since I've had a persistent PCB throw rod problem for the nearly 50 years I've been making my own Code55 & Code40 turnouts, I finally figured out that not having sliding hinges at the point rail heels, or having a hinged throw rod (not both) solved the problem of throw rod detachment at the point rail toes. However, the solution is fairly mechanically complex. One of the things I like about hand-laying my own turnouts is that I get to have point rails that are of prototypical length, so that the "kink" where they hinge is easily seen, just like on prototype turnouts. Having a monolithic closure rail/point rail setup totally defeats the prototype look even though that offers a less-complicated, less exacting construction protocol...it just doesn't look nearly as "real"...because it's not.
So, how to make good sliding hinges at the junction of the closure rails and the point rail heels? The easy way is to use short pieces of a tight rail joiner...such as Micro Engineering's rail joiners. It doesn't need to be full length, and can easily be cut to a proper length by mounting it on a scrap piece of rail, then cutting both the rail and the mounted rail joiner with sharp flush-cutters. A bit of dressing with a small jeweler's file is all that's needed to make a very reliable and good-looking sliding hinge that gets soldered to only the closure rail ends...or the point rail heels...just not both.
I've used Proto:87 Stores products for hinges and tri-planed point rails in the past, but the owner is closing up shop and retiring this year (2025) so, I'm not going to recommend any of his products since he's concentrating on trolly/streetcar track products and I'm not sure if he's even got any N-scale products to offer any longer.
If you want both monolithic closure rail/point rail construction, but still want hinges and scale length point rails, you can make non-sliding point rail heel hinges by notching the rail on the sides (both)...leaving a slim "tab" of rail web material that forms the hinge. This is what that looks like...
Photo (1) - "Notch" point rail hinges on one of my old Code55 turnouts:
As handy as "notch hinges" are...if you decide to use them, you need to hinge the throw bar at the point rail toes. Here's what my point rail throw bar hinges look like...
Photo (2) - Hinges at the throw bars for both functionality and with simplified realism on one of my Code55 turnouts: 
Although I like these a lot better than my previous PCB throw bars with point rail toe integral soldering pads filed on to the rails, these probably won't work on Code40 turnouts because of the shorter rail. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to explore my first suggestion more fully as I think it has a lot of structural/mechanical advantages as well as appearance advantages.
However, if you would like to try your hand at constructing my point rail hinges, here are detailed instructions on how I make them...
Photo (3) - Illustrated Instruction on how to make my point rail hinges and preserve a modicum of realism for Code55 turnout:
Where the brass rod throw bars are gapped, I'll bend up a small U-shaped piece of paper, or 3D print a detailed electrically non-conductive joiner to slip over the gap after I'm completely done with the installation on my layout.
Here's what the east end of that installation looks like, which is three turnouts built monolitically on my bench...a #8, a #6 and a #4 wye to make the entrance/exit of a UP-style center siding. The west end of the siding is similar, but isn't installed yet because I'm having to fabricate a custom throw bar linkage under the roadbed to hook up one of the Tortoises because of the nearness of one of the turnout's throwbar to the module end-plate.
Photo (4) - East end of my Emory Center Siding not yet painted/ballasted:
I'll post some photos when I get going on making turnouts in both Code55 and Code40 for my 17' Devil's Slide/Ideal Concrete extension using the fake/hidden throwbar method.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
