Unitrack turnouts issue.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Good question - a point not brought up so far - you can put a Kato turnout/crossover etal down
and use a toggle switch and one capacitor to actuate/throw the unit. Can't do that with hand laid/other sectional track turnouts.
Al

And also decide on which version of power routing and live/dead frog selection by moving a jumper screw?

The Unitrack stuff lacks in the looks department, but product wise? It's absolutely brilliant.

[nkalanaga]

Mark:  "One or the other":  Which choice?  code 40 vs American tie spacing? 

For me, I'd take the code 40 first, simply because most of my C40 track is industrial or yard track, so the tie spacing doesn't really matter.  If it's wider than the mainline, no big deal.

For those who want mainline track, it wouldn't be a choice.  They can already get a variety of C55 turnouts, with American tie spacing, and probably wouldn't buy the C40, roadbed or not, if it wasn't American style.

[narrowminded]

Mark:  "One or the other":  Which choice?  code 40 vs American tie spacing? 

For me, I'd take the code 40 first, simply because most of my C40 track is industrial or yard track, so the tie spacing doesn't really matter.  If it's wider than the mainline, no big deal.

For those who want mainline track, it wouldn't be a choice.  They can already get a variety of C55 turnouts, with American tie spacing, and probably wouldn't buy the C40, roadbed or not, if it wasn't American style.

I was actually referring to code 40, code 55, your choice, what I'm already working on, but then meaning with or without roadbed as another choice.  I'm lining up options for the turnouts and tie bed I'm making.  I hadn't thought of roadbed as an option by the way the whole system I'm developing works, somewhere between hand laid and flex, but maybe there'd be a place for a roadbed type just for turnouts with ends that mate with Kato track at its dimensions for those that might want to use the Kato track but with a more prototypical looking (and nice functioning) turnout.  It could be done. 

Maybe I should wait until someone wanted something specific before to bother.  If we followed all suggestions of good ideas we'd have a shelf full of stuff that was a good idea that nobody actually used.  "Sounds like a good idea... maybe someday if I build the X, Y, and Z."

[randgust]

OK, I gotta ask....

I was intrigued by Bob's 'point rail hinges' idea, as I don't think I've ever seen anybody do that before.    That's the weak point on almost any turnout I've ever seen, period.   I've been soldering fine wire jumpers around that connection now for ....hmmm... 45 years or so, on everybody's turnouts.   I'm not as fussy about appearance based on rail height and tie spacing, but I do paint and ballast mine, and that's a death sentence for continuity if you don't do something.

I would think that would be an invitation to metal fatigue there at that filed joint over time, but man, if it works, that's amazing.   I've always like the idea of a continuous rail despite the appearance, just to prevent the inevitable electrical failure issues.   My 'stock' turnouts are now Peco C55 electrofrogs with point jumpers added and either a Tortoise or ground-throw added instead of just relying on the spring throw.    More power.  Those tiny built-in solenoids limit the abilty to really move a set of stubborn points.   My legacy ATSF layout still has a big fleet of HO Lambert solenoids under the roadbed, and those move a switchpoint, let me tell you, and anything else in the immediate vicinity as well.

I lost my love of Atlas C55 turnouts when I was at the scene of the crime when Jerry Britton's N layout fell victim to an early production run that allowed the point connections to fail over his ENORMOUS hidden storage yard and if ever I saw a broken man with a brilliant layout idea...that was it.

[peteski]

OK, I gotta ask....

I was intrigued by Bob's 'point rail hinges' idea, as I don't think I've ever seen anybody do that before.    That's the weak point on almost any turnout I've ever seen, period.   I've been soldering fine wire jumpers around that connection now for ....hmmm... 45 years or so, on everybody's turnouts.   I'm not as fussy about appearance based on rail height and tie spacing, but I do paint and ballast mine, and that's a death sentence for continuity if you don't do something.

I would think that would be an invitation to metal fatigue there at that filed joint over time, but man, if it works, that's amazing. 

There is such a minimal deflection of the rail at that point that I don't think metal fatigue even comes into play.  I always thought that if I was going to handlay turnouts, that is how I would address the point hinging, and low and behold, I see others doing it already.  Perfectly simple and very robust solution. Not only there is no play in the hinge for the points to flop around, the electrical contact can't be any more solid too.

[randgust]

Not only that, but most manufacturers stamp the points, and the profile of the points NEVER matches the profile of the rail.  There's always a lip or edge right at that spot.  As you're inspecting a turnout, that's one of the places that always gets filed.   

I know in Nn3 (Z) the Rokuhan turnouts (think imitation Kato design) are particularly poor at that spot, and the Rokuhan wheel profile is equally poor, and they were climbing off right there at that spot on a regular basis.   Got so frustrating that I had to ban the sharp turnouts from my module, I couldn't fix it.

Anyway, applause sign is in order.

[nkalanaga]

Mark:  I don't really care if the turnouts have roadbed or not, but one of the reasons I've often heard for no ready-to-use code 40 turnouts is that they're too fragile.  We have C40 flex track, but without turnouts, anybody wanting to use it still has to hand lay their turnouts. 

I wasn't actually thinking of a Kato/Bachmann style roadbed, although that could be done, and I wouldn't complain about it.  I was thinking about a simple slab, with the ties cast on top, and some cast-in ballast around the points, to eliminate having to ballast around them.  The roadbed could easily stop at the end of the ties, except in the point area, as the rest of the turnout would be ballasted by the user, to match their track. 

For the headblock ties, I'd cast them as a separate piece, with a matching "plain" ballasted piece for the other side, so the user could put them where needed.

My idea wasn't Unitrack-style C40 track, but just a way to make ready-to-use C40 turnouts tough enough for mass production, and easy enough for average modelers to use.

[narrowminded]

Mark:  I don't really care if the turnouts have roadbed or not, but one of the reasons I've often heard for no ready-to-use code 40 turnouts is that they're too fragile.  We have C40 flex track, but without turnouts, anybody wanting to use it still has to hand lay their turnouts. 

I think there's some truth and some fallacy in that, that they're too fragile.   Yes, they're a little more fragile but packaging and an instruction that warns about the handling until they are mounted solid to a road bed could address some of that.  And they're not really that bad.  What I do suspect is part of the issue is all of the same stuff that happens with code 40 flex track and the difficulty with spikes that are sufficient to grip the rail while not being so large as to look all wrong and then, small enough to leave sufficient wheel flange height clearance while still holding on to the rail.  I suspect this is entirely the issue behind Z track being code 55 or even larger.  Rokuhan Z is code 65, for example.   I think Marklin is up there, too.  Atlas' new Z track is code 55 as is Micro-Trains.  And we think our N scale is bad at code 55.

I wasn't actually thinking of a Kato/Bachmann style roadbed, although that could be done, and I wouldn't complain about it.  I was thinking about a simple slab, with the ties cast on top, and some cast-in ballast around the points, to eliminate having to ballast around them.  The roadbed could easily stop at the end of the ties, except in the point area, as the rest of the turnout would be ballasted by the user, to match their track. 

For the headblock ties, I'd cast them as a separate piece, with a matching "plain" ballasted piece for the other side, so the user could put them where needed.


My idea wasn't Unitrack-style C40 track, but just a way to make ready-to-use C40 turnouts tough enough for mass production, and easy enough for average modelers to use.

It  could be done and I have entertained the possibility, on the turnouts only, of leaving a .010" thick or so solid fill in the rectangle between the ties and rails, letting the tie outboard ends hang free, with the idea that it wouldn't interfere with ballasting or appearance but might make the switch more solid and straight when handling and installing them, but I'm not sure at this point that that will be necessary.  We've all seen the Atlas turnouts "curving" on the through run and having to be forced straight and pinned while gluing down.  Because all of my rail will be pre-formed and solidly attached (not straight rail slid under spike heads) I don't think this will be a problem as there is nothing in the assembly that's trying to be in any shape but the correct one.  I haven't completed enough finished assemblies yet to make a final decision on these details but there are several things in this area (and elsewhere) that have been considered and can be employed should the need surface.  I call these things my, "Solutions for problems that I don't yet know exist".   

As far as switch operator position, right or left, that will be installer determined as you're suggesting.  I think what I'm cooking up will be liked and will offer the installer enough options.

And no, at this time I'm not sure that road bed makes the list.  But if the interest is there I'm pretty sure it could be done.  What might make sense is some adapters not unlike what I did for the Rokuhan Z, Code 65 turnouts, to Z or Nn3 Code 40 rail.  That is a very handy bit that makes the transition very accurately and painless to execute.  They are shown in this old thread.  A lot has happened since then.   https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=46808.msg613664#msg613664

[narrowminded]

OK, I gotta ask....

I was intrigued by Bob's 'point rail hinges' idea, as I don't think I've ever seen anybody do that before.    That's the weak point on almost any turnout I've ever seen, period.   I've been soldering fine wire jumpers around that connection now for ....hmmm... 45 years or so, on everybody's turnouts.   I'm not as fussy about appearance based on rail height and tie spacing, but I do paint and ballast mine, and that's a death sentence for continuity if you don't do something.

I would think that would be an invitation to metal fatigue there at that filed joint over time, but man, if it works, that's amazing.

I had seen that some time ago for use on hand laid turnouts but also for repairing Atlas turnouts.  I've got two that I repaired that way a few years ago and they work flawlessly.  My new turnouts will be built that way with the rail notches machined rather than just filed but the idea is the same. 

As far as flexing being an issue, that has not been a problem on any that I've ever heard of.  The flex is in the 2 to 3 degree max range (at least on my designs) and it's just not proven to be enough to cause trouble.  I have already done some preliminary tests on this, filing some notches and then flexing as they will in service and not getting into the yield range of the material.  It always springs back to the original position.  I will be running extreme numbers of cycles on the finished models because that's not a full and final, but a very good indicator that it will be fine and for the life of a unit even in pretty heavy use.  If it had yielded from that simple motion, holding the new bent position, that would be a good indication that it's not acting as a spring and actually bending. It has forced the joint past the yield point and the metal won't take very much of that.  But no yield? That will very likely be good over the long haul but will be tested.  If necessary, hinges will be used but I really doubt that will be necessary based on some experience as well as the specific testing described.  It sure does lend itself to a smooth running and electrically reliable joint!

As far as fixing one of your existing turnouts, pull all of the old junk out, cut a rail piece to length retrieved from some track.  File the point prep using the old rail piece as your example.  When that's fitted, cut a piece of .005" brass sheet (probably could be up to .010") to the width needed for the throw bar but oversized lengthwise so you can hold it for soldering.  Makes the positioning much more forgiving.  Solder the tab in place on the rail bottom using the old rail piece as your position example.  Once soldered in place, trim as the original and then, using the original as a guide, place the new and old rails on a flat surface, trimmed face down, and with the appropriate sized drill in your pin vise, drill the new tab using the old one as your drill guide.  File a couple of notches in the rail foot and head at the hinge point, to the web surface, and then some CA on the ties in the spiked section, slide the rail in to the tie bed making sure that you leave a small insulation gap from the guard rail.  Reinstall the tie bar and you're done.  Looks and performs better than new and is actually easier and a more assured fix than trying to solder a jumper wire.

[nkalanaga]

Mark:  I believe Marklin's Z track is code 60, but the exact size doesn't matter.  It mates fine with C55, and the fact remains that ALL Z rail is grossly oversized.

And, I agree, part of the problem is the spikes.  Manufacturers, reasonably, want their track to be "backwards compatible", as the computer folks say, and there really is no way to make spiked C40, handlaid or prefab, compatible with pizza-cutter flanges.  Most North American stuff, at least since the 80s, will run on C55, so that's what they make.