Handlaid Turnout Update

[wcfn100]

You're right, one too many zeros, but if you're splitting the difference...

But you're not splitting it. 

You bend so the middle of the web is on the edge of the rail head.  That's .013" (half the rail head width).  Normal rail base is 0.21".  So even though it's still a small amount, relatively speaking it's quite a bit (165% ?).

Anyway, it doesn't matter to me, since I don't solder the rails to a throwbar.

Jason

[jagged ben]

Not quite.  Just filing from both sides will never get you an optimal point (or frog).

The point rail gets slightly bent at the end so the the web lines up with the side you wouldn't normally file (the 'inside' part of the point rail).  Then the rail head is filed back straight to the rest of the rail.  Then you can proceed to file from the other side (stock rail side) and it will never cut into the web.  This also leaves extra base rail to solder to the throwbar.

Jason

I just use the point form tool, and then cut the filed end back to where the web is solid.   Then, when the point is installed and soldered to the throwbar, I use a curved file to finish filing the point to a... point.

Works for me.  Especially on longer turnouts, where the point form tool deficiency is less pronounced. 

[DKS]

You bend so the middle of the web is on the edge of the rail head.  That's .013" (half the rail head width).  Normal rail base is 0.21".  So even though it's still a small amount, relatively speaking it's quite a bit (165% ?).

Now someone else is having trouble with numbers. I don't know what rail you're using, but the Code 55 I have has a base of 0.055", coincidentally. If I file away half of the rail, that's 0.028" of base left.

The rail head I measure at 0.028", and the web at 0.012". The head is 0.016" wider than the web; if I bend the rail so the side of the web aligns with the side of where the head was, then I bend it only 0.008" (0.028" - 0.012" / 2, or the difference between the side of the head and the side of the web). That's a mighty shallow bend, by the way--would love to know how you measure it.

Utilizing the bend, the base grows from 0.028" to 0.036". That's a 28% increase--hardly 165%. Also note that you do not gain half the width of the head, because you're still filing some of the head away on both sides.

[wcfn100]

Now someone else is having trouble with numbers. I don't know what rail you're using, but the Code 55 I have has a base of 0.055", coincidentally. If I file away half of the rail, that's 0.028" of base left.

I was just talking about how much base there was on on side of the web to solder to (the other side gets filed flat anyway). 

.054"(base) -.012" (web) / 2 (one side) = .021"

I know this won't matter but here a drawing of the difference.




Maybe I'm just more of a stickler for keeping my turnouts in gauge than everyone else.   

Jason

[DKS]

Maybe I'm just more of a stickler for keeping my turnouts in gauge than everyone else.   

When the stock rail is properly filed, there is no gauge issue to worry about. I also taper the head more than you show. Besides, in order to taper to a point, you'll be filing through at least part of the web on one side or the other.

Bottom line, IMO there doesn't seem to be much to gain by the extra step of bending the rail by .008".

But if it makes you feel better, then it's good. 

[robert3985]

OK.

Here's my second effort, done today:



I've tested this one; it works very, very well, although the solder joints still aren't as "pretty" as I'd like.   I've run my Walthers 0-8-0 through it, and that engine runs very smoothly -  which is a big improvement over what happens with Atlas #5's (this engine is notoriously picky about turnouts; it will derail on Atlas #5's about half the time, until I spend hours re-working them to exact NMRA standards).  Everything from my VO1000 switcher to my NKP Heritage GEVO from FVM ran flawlessly.

So . . . going to paint this one, put it on the layout in the switching area I built it for, hook it up to a Tortoise, and see what happens over the next several operating sessions.

Some additional thoughts:

1.  I haven't installed the headblock ties yet, since I'm still cogitating on how best to do that.  Probably will use a couple of Clover House PC ties for this.

2.  The rest of the wood ties are Fast Tracks "quick sticks" laser cut ties, which are convenient, but expensive at $6 per turnout.  After I use up the 5 I got with my kit, I'll roll my own wood ties.  The Pliobond does work well for these, though.

Very satisfying to have done this.  Going to build a few more to hone my skills (the layout can always use a few more switches!) and see what happens.

John C.

John, very nice!

Just for giggles, you might want to download Proto87 Stores pdf file for a #6 template, to see the difference between what building your turnouts to NMRA and Fast Tracks specs, and building them to more prototypical tie spacing, switch and frog proportions looks like to your eye.  I'm not gonna say that you'll see a big difference, but there definitely IS a difference, which you may find to your liking, or not.

I find that smashing about 3/8 to 1/2" of solder with my flat-nose pliers, then splitting that with my Xacto makes solder control easier.  Give it a try.

As to my individual tastes and practices for turnout switches:
My last dozen turnouts don't have soldered points at the PCB throwbar either.  I like the new "solution" much better from an operational, reliability and appearance standpoint.

I do order and use Andy Reichert's (Proto87Stores.com) etched NS headblock/hinge/throwbar cause they're cheap. look great and work great too.

However, I DO the point-bendy thing on all my closure points.  Just the way I learned to do 'em from Gordy (I think).  Doesn't take any longer.

The last dozen turnouts don't have the inside rail foot on the stock rails filed away either (hate the way that looks).  I started buying Proto87 Stores' "tri-planed closure points-short" for my turnouts.  Spendy little buggers at ten bucks a pair, but they're worth it until I can figure a way to make my own.  Since I bought all of my PCB tie material and rail years ago, I'm still saving a significant amount.

Ain't it FUN???   

[wcfn100]

When the stock rail is properly filed, there is no gauge issue to worry about.

I don't have to file the stock rail except for the base.  There's no notch needed for the point when the turnout is built correctly.

I also taper the head more than you show.

That can actually be worse depending on what's more important - the wheel drop at the frog or the gauge, but regardless, it was drawn for effect. 

. Besides, in order to taper to a point, you'll be filing through at least part of the web on one side or the other.

Nope.  The way I'm talking about never files through the web, only half way (approx.).

Jason

[DKS]

Nope.  The way I'm talking about never files through the web, only half way (approx.).

I meant the same thing. I should have said "into" instead of "through." My bad.

you'll be filing through into at least part of the web

I don't file through the web, either.

The "right" way purportedly results in better gauge. But doing it the "wrong" way, I have no gauge problems. Or wheel drop problems. Guess it's just dumb luck. 

[wcfn100]

For anyone interested, I'll post this one last time.



It's a better way.  But until someone else tries it, that's doesn't matter much.

Jason

[robert3985]

For anyone interested, I'll post this one last time.



It's a better way.  But until someone else tries it, that's doesn't matter much.

Jason

Post the one illustrating frog point construction too please. 

[DKS]

I suppose I can only use "Robert's flux" on "Jason's points"? 

Honestly, I can appreciate all of this on a technical level. But I have to ask... if my switches all work perfectly, then how is this "better"?

[wcfn100]

Post the one illustrating frog point construction too please.

I can't say I've done a frog exactly like this yet, namely notching the rail.  But for larger turnouts, using one rail for the point and butting the other against it is essential.

Jason

[wcfn100]

I suppose I can only use "Robert's flux" on "Jason's points"? 

Honestly, I can appreciate all of this on a technical level. But I have to ask... if my switches all work perfectly, then how is this "better"?

For some people Atlas turnouts 'work perfectly'.  And they're a mess.

Next turnout I do, I'll take pictures.

Jason

[Chris333]

I'd bet Ian likes turtles...

[wcfn100]

Here's some food for thought.

You cannot taper the rail from both sides without going out of gauge along one of the tapers.

Now I haven't thought this all the way through, so we'll see if it holds up.

The bigger the rail used, the worse it is (assuming the rail head gets wider).  Perhaps this is why this method came out when people were using c100 rail in HO.  And perhaps this is why it's not really needed for N scale to get reliable turnouts.

Still better. 

Jason