I'd like to extend the recent discussions on commercial turnout shortages to ask the question: how many folks would be interested in using Code 40 track, if a source of commercially available turnouts were available?
Some additional fodder for thought:
- What frog sizes would be most interesting? (say #6 thru #12)?
- What price range would be acceptable? Would you be willing to spend more for quality, hand-build turnouts? Or would higher (than current commercial) pricing be a non-starter?
- What level of detail would you prefer? (i.e. tieplate detail, or is C40 too small to care?)
- Attached (wood) ties, or use your own? Pre-wired? Pre-painted?
- What about specialty track (curved, crossings, slip, ...)?
Ed
The first question that came to mind was, "Is Ed talking about using Micro Engineering C40 flex???...OR, hand-laying PCB C40??"
The reason for that question is that present-day Micro Engineering C40 flex is crap. Micro Engineering made a really GREAT decision (irony) to increase the size of the "spikeheads" on both C40 and C55 flex for added durability I suppose, which in C40, makes it virtually unusable for anything but engines and cars equipped with actual low-profile flanges. This means that such common engines such as Kato F's, Kato E's, Atlas GP-7's and 9's, and many others won't run on it...at all. Their flanges hit each and every spikehead molded into the new C40 flex. Additionally, they decided to make the spikes completely regular, rather than the random looking teeny single and double spikes on each tie of RailCraft C40 Flex.
Photo (1) - Old Wonderful RailCraft C55 Flex (Top) and Atlas C55 Flex (Bottom) Notice the random appearing teeny spikeheads on the RailCraft flex:
Photo (2) - New Crappy ME C55 Flex (Right) and Atlas C55 Flex (Left) Notice there's not much of a difference nowadays:
The lack of tie plate and spike details on hand laid PCB C40 track really bugs me, so on my foreground mainline trackage, I'm using new Micro Engineering flex with the big inside spike heads carefully sanded down with a NWSL "The Detail Sander" stick. This allows (so far) my test engines to run smoothly without hitting the spikes, and I like the way the track looks better too. I'm considering sanding down the outside spikeheads just for the improved cosmetics.
Photo (3) - Center Siding at Devils Slide Using ME C40 Flex Between Old RailCraft C55 Flex. Notice those great little spikeheads on the old RC C55:
So, it isn't just a matter of having RTR turnouts in C40 to "use" C40 rails on your model railroad. Your choices are very limited. Will you use Micro Engineering C40 flex (and sand down the spike heads so that your engines and cars will actually RUN ON IT?!?...and enjoy the look of having tie plates and spikes on your non-turnout trackage??...OR, will you opt to hand-lay your C40 trackage so that even pizza-cutters will run on it unimpeded??...but without tie plate and spike head details?? Laying your own C40 rail is also MUCH more expensive than buying, using, and modifying ME C40, because of the cost of the wooden and PCB ties.
Although I opted earlier in my model railroad life to hand-lay my C40 PCB trackage because my scenes were part of a larger modular club layout, and some members had not yet converted their rolling stock to low-pros. Pizza cutters would not run on RailCraft C40 flex. Since I am now running only my own trains with low-pros on every car and fairly low-pro flanges on most of my motive power, I am now using ME C40 flex as mainline siding and spur trackage, but with filed-down inside spikeheads. Guests who bring their own trains are warned that only low-pro wheelsets will run on the layout.
So, "using code 40 track" is not as simple as it may seem at first, since mere turnout availability doesn't answer all the potential problems.
The second question that came to my mind was "Is Ed talking about using present HO scale C40 rail, or drawing new N-scale 136# AREA mainline rail .046" high with at least a properly proportioned railhead??????????"
Present C40 rail from Micro Engineering is actually .044" tall, making it near perfect height-wise for 127# rail, but .002" too short for 136# AREA rail.
Photo (4) - AREA 136# Rail Cross Section and Measurements:
Just for shirts & giggles, .002" is only 1/3 of an N-scale inch too short...which I can live with to represent 136" AREA rail.
As you know very well Ed, HO scale C40 rails have an appearance problem when used in N-scale because of a couple of things about the C40 railhead. First, its railhead is too wide. 136# AREA railhead width is 2 15/16", which in N-scale is .0185". Micro Engineering's C40 rail's railhead width is .022", which is .0035" too wide...a somewhat insignificant amount. A much bigger problem from an appearance standpoint is that C40 rail's railhead is basically flat on top, as opposed to the prototype's curved surface which you can see in the above cross section. C40's flatness results in a much wider reflection when light bounces off the top of the flat railheads, as opposed to properly curved railhead tops, making the rails look exceedingly thick. This drives some modelers crazy. Me...I can live with it.
BUT, if I had a choice, I'd much prefer properly proportioned N-scale rails that represent 136# AREA rail, correct in height, railhead width and profile too.
So far, I've managed to live with C55 rails on my mainlines, and both hand-laid PCB C40, and Micro Engineering C40 flex (with sanded down spikeheads) for sidings, spurs, industrial areas and branchlines. I like the height difference of .011" that is plainly visible between the two rails. I don't like having mainline rail that would be 1 3/4" taller than 136#AREA rails that Weber and Echo Canyons have been shod with since being realigned for the 4000's back in 1941, BUT, it's only .011" too tall...my eyeballs can live with that pretty easily, even if the a$$hat in me wants that shorter .046" tall rail pretty badly.
The problem for me is that since I like the visible height difference between C55 and C40 rails, if I went with C40 rails, which at .044" would look much closer to the prototype's rail height, what would I use for the lighter sidings, spurs, industrial and branchlines???? I'm not ready for the visual deficiencies of ribbon rail, so I'll continue to use C55 for my mainlines, and C40 handlaid for everything else.
I'm going to assume Ed, that you are talking about using the present supply of C40 that Micro Engineering produces for your "Code 40 track" rails. IMO, it's far from perfect, but it's good enough...even with that flat railhead.
For marketing's sake, I would also include properly proportioned C55 turnouts as well as C40 in my product line.
Since DCC is becoming prominent, they should also be DCC friendly (which isn't a bad idea using DC either) and have isolated frogs, closure rails and point rails that are the same polarity as the adjacent stock rails, which is easy to do using PCB tie construction.
The isolated frogs should have either a nub or green wire attached to power them. If you're going to use PC board construction, the frog wire could be easily attached to one of the PCB ties the frog is soldered to instead of being actually attached to the frog.
Since these will be "Ed Nadolski" turnouts, I'd opt for hinged point rails. Although I like using Proto87Store's hinge protocol, they don't look very realistic, except for the built-in heel blocks between the closure rails and the stock rails, but they are much better appearance-wise than using railjoiners. What I've planned for in future switch point rail hinges is this: etch a thin, phosophor-bronze plate, with bolt head detail etched on one side, then soldered to the inside surface of the rail web between the point rail heels and the closure rails...this would be totally realistic looking and nearly bullet-proof.
On the topic of point rails, if you're set up to do it (meaning if you have or have access to a good mill), I'd go with tri-planed point rails instead of the typical file-the-stock-rails construction. I'm using Proto87Stores' versions, and they work great, and look prototypical after an application of bolt heads on the inside rail web surface. At $10 a pair, they are expensive, and I'll be constructing jigs and fixtures to mill them myself this Summer for the dozen or more C40 turnouts that will go in my Ideal Concrete Plant at Devils Slide.
On a construction note...If you're thinking of monolithically etching your turnout/switch tie plates and spikehead details for each differently numbered turnout, using tri-planed closure rails and not having to file the stock rails would (it seems to me) both simplify and speed up production since the etched fret would act as the construction fixture, the rail foot being held quite securely and precisely in the tie plate/spikehead details. (FUN!!)
Next will be the throwbars. If you've decided to solidly attach phosphor bronze plate hinges at the point rail heels, then the throwbar MUST be a mechanical hinge also. I've published how I did mine on seven turnouts, developing the protocol as I went, and they have been working flawlessly now for over three years. There is a specific order in the procedures used to get them "right" as far as point toe clearance is concerned because I was drilling my own .015" dia. holes in the sloped top surface of the inside rail foot by hand, and couldn't get the holes located exactly the same on each set of two tri-planed switch point rails. However, mass-produced CNC (or similar) tri-planed point rails would allow precision drilling of the holes in exactly the right places through the rail foot, which would match holes fixture-drilled or LASER-cut in a PCB "throwbar", making construction much quicker than what I do.
Photo (5) - C55 .015" Brass Wire Throwbars On Proto87Stores Tri-planed Point Rails. Notice the adjacent stock rails are not filed: 
Photo (6) - Underside of Above Photo Showing Bent Ends on .015" Brass Wire Throwbars Which Keeps Point Rail Toes In Place and Hinged Simultaneously:
I've got a drawing and instructions I'll post if you are interested in how I make these throwbars work for me.
On the other hand, using a rail-joiner-like hinge or ones like the Proto87Stores hinges/heel blocks obviates the necessity of hinging the point rail toes at the throwbar, which would greatly decrease the time needed for construction, and not affect reliability very much. Perhaps a small Z piece of brass with some etched bolt-head detail could act as a good-looking reinforcement for the attachment location for the point rail toes at a PCB throwbar (normal tie width).
If you wanted to push the envelope a bit, you could have photo-etched/LASER cut PCB throwbars to simulate a rod between the point rail toes, with soldering pads precisely located for the underside of the rail foot at the point rail toes, maybe using double thick copper up top, and not copper on the bottom so the throwbar thickness would be identical to the other PCB ties, but have more copper for more definite detailing. Hmmm...that idea has potential!
As to turnout size preferences. My preferences are colored by what U.P. actually used as far as turnout sizes on their Weber Canyon and Echo Canyon mainline. Surprisingly, the turnouts are not huge, but different sized than what most modelers are used to and want. Most of the mainline turnouts at Echo and Echo Yard, at Riverdale Yard, at Ogden Yard were #9's. The center sidings also used (and use) #9's from the adjacent mainlines to a #6 Wye leading to the center siding. Some higher speed turnouts are #11's on the mainline. Turnouts in the Park City Yard at Echo were #6's, but only light MacArthurs, Consolidations, BB-trucked diesels (with the seasonal Park City Ski Special passenger train pulled by E's) traversed that branchline from Echo to Park City.
For N-scale modeling, in both C40 and C55 (if you choose to manufacture C55) I'd start with a #6, a #9 and a #12, with #3 and #6 wyes.
Additionally in C40, I'd go with a #4 for industrial, lightly trafficked use and a #2 wye.
Curved turnouts in both C40 and C55 would be a 24"/18", and a 21"/15"
One three-way in both C40 and C55 would be a #6
Price: I'd be willing to spend 125% to 130% of what's currently available for reliability, prototype fidelity and unmatched detailing...maybe even a bit more.
As to detail level, it's only the rail on C40 that's smaller. Tie plate and spike details are the same size, so if you can, include 'em...after all, they ARE "Ed Nadolski Turnouts"
I miss those details on my hand laid C40 PCB trackage...and also on my hand-laid C55 turnouts. Please...make the detailing better than what's on new ME C40 flex so that trains will actually run on your new turnouts....please.
Wood ties...I don't care what the ties made of since I am using white Styrene ties now on my turnouts. It all gets painted by me anyway, including trackage where I've used wooden ties. I like the texture of the wooden ties, but I can get just as good of texture using a file card and wire brushes before painting on Styrene ties, so....a LASER-cut set of non-PCB ties either attached already or separate (depending on your construction methods) is okay with me, and would greatly speed up installation. Unpainted, since paint is going to interfere with soldering and attaching feeders.
Although I am sure that making excellent quality C40 turnouts available will encourage N-scale model railroaders to use C40, even with the above mentioned considerations, I am also sure that neglecting C55 will be a bad business decision.
I have no doubt that if you decide to do this, these N-scale turnouts will be the very best!
If I can do anything at all to assist, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
