Code 55 fasttracks turnouts with Atlas code 55 flextrack

[Ken Rice]

The background:
I've been doing some test running and fine tuning on the track I've got laid so far before I continue with the rest of the layout, on the theory that I might find things I should do differently.  And I think I may have.  I'm using Atlas code 55 #10 turnouts.  Atlas GP38s for power, all metals wheels (mostly FVM).  I seem to be spending more time fine tuning the turnouts that I expected to.  And last night I discovered the reason my locos have been doing something a little odd on one particular turnout isn't due to a pickup problem, or a foible of TCS motor control, it's that the plastic throwbar is sticking up just enough for the flange on the loco to bump over it (although the flanges on the rolling stock all seem to clear it OK).  After fiddling with that for half an hour or so I decided maybe if I was going to be spending this much time per turnout I might end up with something better in the same time if I built them myself.  I've built a #10 code 40 turnout with a fast tracks jig, and in spite of the fact that it's not perfect it works considerably better than the atlas turnouts.  Zero wheel drop in the frog for one thing.  I didn't like the idea of hand-laying all the track though, and I didn't like the ME code 40 flex (uneven tie thickness, too hard to get a smooth curve).  So atlas code 55 flex is what I'm using.  I'm now thinking of going with fast tracks code 55 jig built turnouts.  I know it's possible to built great turnouts without the jig (I built one in O scale), but I want to use the jig to make it faster and easier.
I've found and read this excellent thread: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=30135.0.  I was going to post at the end of that, but when I started I got a message that questioned posting on old inactive threads and suggested I start a new thread.  I've also seen various posts from other people who are apparently mixing fast tracks code 55 turnouts and atlas track.

The questions:

- The fast tracks jigs are set up for ME code 55.  ME rail has a slightly different cross section that Atlas code 55.  I assume that's not an issue?  Is it close enough to not need any filing at joints?

- The fast tracks turnout ties (QuickSticks) seem to be slightly thinner than the atlas ties.  It's not much.  Do you just not worry about it, use some very thin sheet under the turnout, or what?

- I'd go with one piece point-closure rails (one of the appealing things is not needing to solder point jumpers).  The code 40 #10 I built had one point pop off the throwbar.  I've seen several suggestions for that - shallow S curve brass reinforcement, wider PC tie for throwbar, the one on the fast tracks website where you solder a small spike to the point and stick it into a hole drilled in the throwbar, etc.  It's also possible I just didn't get as good a solder joint as I should have.  Anyway, the question - for those who use a wider PC tie for the throwbar, I assume you must have soldered the points on after removing the turnout from the jig, since the jig is milled for a narrow throwbar?  Or is the a variation on the jig available?

- Lots of interesting discussion on soldering technique in that other thread.  One I didn't see mentioned was using solder paste - that plus the resistance soldering tweezers seems like it might be a really good combo.  Anyone tried it already, or will I be the guinea pig?

- With the resistance soldering tweezers, do people set them up with both sides of the tweezers wired together and the second wire going to the copper on the tie, or just use the tweezers to heat the rail between them and count on the rail heating the copper on the tie?

- Anyone using caboose ground throws with fast tracks turnouts?  Which one?

[jdcolombo]

I can answer a couple of these questions.

1.  Mixing ME Code 55 and Atlas Code 55 isn't a problem.  I've done it.  No need to file. 

2.  I didn't use anything under the Fast Tracks turnout.  Just connected it to the Atlas flex and that was that.  I only used the QuickStiks ties twice, however.  The rest of the time I used bulk ties from Clover House (much cheaper, not much more work).   They worked great, too.

The other questions I can't really comment on, except that I used a silver solder at the points with a regular-sized tie as the throwbar, and I haven't had any issues with separation from the tie, even on a #4 turnout that is now going on two years old and is used heavily in a switching area.  I suspect that it was a bad solder joint that caused your problem; I used a paste flux and a 35-watt Weller iron with a pencil tip, and it did a great job, though if you're going to build a lot of these, a resistance unit is probably worth the extra expense.

Honestly, if I'd known how much better handlaid turnouts worked, I'd have done my entire layout with Fast Tracks #7's instead of Atlas.  Yes, it would have taken a lot of time to build the 100 that I needed for my layout, but there's just no comparison in terms of smooth operation.

John C.

[Jeff AKA St0rm]

It sounds like you have the same problem M.C Fujiwara talked about where the throw bar needs a shim. I can't find the post but it talks about a small piece of styrene going between the throwbar and the bottom of the track and this keeps the throwbar from riding up. Can someone help find this post, i think he reposted in with in the last 2 months?

[ryan_wilkerson]

Here you go:

/>

[jagged ben]

- I'd go with one piece point-closure rails (one of the appealing things is not needing to solder point jumpers).  The code 40 #10 I built had one point pop off the throwbar.  I've seen several suggestions for that - shallow S curve brass reinforcement, wider PC tie for throwbar, the one on the fast tracks website where you solder a small spike to the point and stick it into a hole drilled in the throwbar, etc.  It's also possible I just didn't get as good a solder joint as I should have.  Anyway, the question - for those who use a wider PC tie for the throwbar, I assume you must have soldered the points on after removing the turnout from the jig, since the jig is milled for a narrow throwbar?  Or is the a variation on the jig available?

What I do is take it out of the jig and double stick tape it to a paper Fasttracks template.    I also change out the long ties on each side of the throwbar to PC ties.  (Terminology?  Is there a name for those?)   I also add at least one more PC tie after these throwbar ties in the direction of the frog, so that there are at least two PC ties on each side the throwbar for added strength.  I solder all these only from the outside of the stock rail, while very carefully holding the rail down tight to the ties with tweezers so that solder doesn't flow underneath the rail and end up interfering with point movement.  I do the same with the tweezers when soldering the points, solder only on the inside.

Why the extra PC ties?  We had a couple turnouts made with only the single tie in the Fasttracks jig and they did not last long.  Stock rails got bent out of shape quick.  Surely that's partly due to the overly strong wire but adding ties just makes a stronger turnout that gives you options.  All of our original pre-Fasttracks handlaid turnouts had those extra ties.  BTW I space these slightly closer together so that I fit four ties into the space of three on the frog side of the throwbar.  Appearance does not bother me.  In fact I think it is prototypical to have ties more closely spaced underneath points, not that I'm following that closely.

Yes, I use a HO scale tie for the throwbar.  Not really my choice, since all the ones I've done are for the club layout and that's our tradition.  Also we use a stronger wire (.040") than comes with the Tortoise and you really need the wider throwbar for that.  If you use the regular size throwbar I recommend drilling the hole before installing because it is somewhat difficult to get the hole well placed in the center and you don't want to mess that part up after you've installed the throwbar.   


Yes, I use a single piece closure rails.  So far not a problem, but time will tell. 

[Mark W]

Here's another method.  The points are always the worst part of a manufactured turnout, everything else is mostly worth it.  So, just replace those pesky points. 

You now have a handlaid quality turnout, for a just little bit more in cost, but less than 1/10th the time. 

[bdennis]

Ken,
I have used the FTracks #6 jig with only Atlas C55 rail and it works with no issues and have built 40+ tunouts.
I use a wider throw bar on points and I add a extra normal width tie just near the wide tie as extra strength. I use Tortoise machines so wanted the wide tie so I could drill a 1mm hole in the tie for the throw bar from the tortoise.
I also use soild point rails. When I make them, I file off the webbing along the lower section of the rail to enable it to flex when the points are thrown. Probably only be an issue for #10 turnouts but definatly needed for #6's.. I also have a heap of atlas turnouts both #5 and #7, and the rolling stock and loco's run much smoother over the hand laid ones.
I used a normal soldering iron with no issues and flux..

See the picture of my turnout in this thread. Note the extra tie to the left of the main wider tie.
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=33418.msg383732#msg383732

Oh, Also, per that thread, dont make the rookie mistake I did and used acid based flux!..

[rschaffter]

Here's another method.  The points are always the worst part of a manufactured turnout, everything else is mostly worth it.  So, just replace those pesky points. 

You now have a handlaid quality turnout, for a just little bit more in cost, but less than 1/10th the time. 

I always wondered why they didn't make them that way in the first place...

[tom mann]

I always wondered why they didn't make them that way in the first place...

Me too.  It seems like it would even be cheaper to manufacture. 

[davefoxx]

Me too.  It seems like it would even be cheaper to manufacture.

Probably because hinged (stamped) points are easier to manufacture and keep within tolerances than mass-produced solid (ground down) points would be.

DFF

[C855B]

^^^ +1.

My exact thought, although I think the points are cast. Precision machining as a production operation for points would likely have consistency (and QC) issues.

[M.C. Fujiwara]

I always wondered why they didn't make them that way in the first place...

The issue is reliability.
The Atlas turnouts have simple "pivots" where the points are connected to the throwbar, and thus no joint = no stress.
Point rails soldered to throwbars have stress on the the joint every time thrown which, over time, causes a point rail to pop off.
(Personally I like to use HO / HOn30 PC board just for the throwbar: solid soldering joint and more space for drilling the hole for an actuating wire)

If Atlas made it Mark's way (a great fix, BTW), for those of us who handlay it's very simple to solder the point rail back onto the PC board throwbar if it pops off, but those without soldering skills would have a broken turnout sooner than expected.

One of the strengths of the Atlas design is in it's "looseness" and I've found that the more you mess with it the more it gets messed up.

The main culprit of the OP's problem is the same I found before I did that video: using too much force to throw the points results in the plastic throwbar rising / bending up.
Styrene shims are one way to fix the problem, but the best is just to use less force when throwing: use a thinner wire on the Tortoise / Bullfrog or a smaller slide switch (SparkFun and AdaFruit have good N-scale-travel distance slide switches).

Otherwise, Mark W's mashup is a great way to go (and can be done to turnouts already installed, with a little magic).

Hope this helps.

[davefoxx]

Not to point M.C. out intentionally, but I can demonstrate what's happening to the Atlas points from his example.  If you look at his video, you will notice that the small plastic strap that bridges the two headblock ties parallel to the rail has been removed on the side where he is shimming the throwbar.  I don't recommend removing this "strap," because there will be nothing to hold the points down flush with the stock rails.  If I remember correctly, the Atlas throwbar is notched under the rails, compounding the problem.  If the plastic "strap" is removed, the throwbar can actually rise above the bottom of the rails and the points really stick up above the stock rails.  In other words, that "strap" holds the throwbar down.

Hope this helps,
DFF

P.S.  Again, my apologies to M.C.

[nscaleSPF2]

Here's another method.  The points are always the worst part of a manufactured turnout, everything else is mostly worth it.  So, just replace those pesky points. 

You now have a handlaid quality turnout, for a just little bit more in cost, but less than 1/10th the time. 

Mark,

Me like.  Me going to try.

Did you use the Fasttrack tool to shape the point rails, or did you do this by hand?

It also looks like it might be a little tricky to cut the gaps in some of the pcb ties.  How did you do that?

[Ken Rice]

I can answer a couple of these questions.

1.  Mixing ME Code 55 and Atlas Code 55 isn't a problem.  I've done it.  No need to file. 

2.  I didn't use anything under the Fast Tracks turnout.  Just connected it to the Atlas flex and that was that.  I only used the QuickStiks ties twice, however.  The rest of the time I used bulk ties from Clover House (much cheaper, not much more work).   They worked great, too.

Excellent - thanks!

The other questions I can't really comment on, except that I used a silver solder at the points with a regular-sized tie as the throwbar, and I haven't had any issues with separation from the tie, even on a #4 turnout that is now going on two years old and is used heavily in a switching area.  I suspect that it was a bad solder joint that caused your problem; I used a paste flux and a 35-watt Weller iron with a pencil tip, and it did a great job, though if you're going to build a lot of these, a resistance unit is probably worth the extra expense.

I've already got the resistance unit (I am a sucker for a cool tool), so that's a no brainer.  I didn't use silver solder, that's a good idea.