Fast Tracks “diamond line”

[Angus Shops]

N scale frogs would really be a game changer. I’ve just completed my last (84th) Fast Tracks switch for my layout, and while the ‘standard’ hand laid frogs work well, detailed castings (and guard rails) would have been a great idea. I wonder about the price though: one of the benefits to hand laid switches is the low cost.
Casting the parts in nickel silver is also top notch, as Peteski notes, and I would imagine a fairly tricky undertaking as the melting point of NS is quite a bit higher than the usual alternatives.
Geoff

[Chris333]

I just want the wax printer.

[ncbqguy]

Cast points to go along with plug-in frogs would fix the  N Scale Code 55 turnout problem.  The main problem with fabricated turnouts (besides the time to cut and fit all the components is the point to throw bar connection. Cast points could solve this and make a turnout that is superior to anything you could buy or build!
Charlie Vlk

[wcfn100]

\The main problem with fabricated turnouts (besides the time to cut and fit all the components is the point to throw bar connection. Cast points could solve this and make a turnout that is superior to anything you could buy or build!\

I'm not getting how cast points would be better than regular rail.   

Jason

[ednadolski]

N scale frogs would really be a game changer. I’ve just completed my last (84th) Fast Tracks switch for my layout, and while the ‘standard’ hand laid frogs work well, detailed castings (and guard rails) would have been a great idea.

Would love to see that, esp. in Code 40, but frankly, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Some might consider that the details would be 'lost' on N scale, just because they are so small and harder to see.   It also opens up the question of building the rest of the turnout to the same level of detailing, and how many folks would be willing to undertake that.

In P:48 tho it's the opposite end of teh spectrum: cast turnout parts save a lot of work compared to filing/forming Code 125 (and larger) rail,  and the goal generally is to go for the highest level of detail as practically achievable.

Seems a bit odd to me to start out with diamonds, since turnout components would be much more common.

Ed

[ncbqguy]

I'm not getting how cast points would be better than regular rail.   

Jason

Jason-  Cast points would be ready to install and would have integral pivot to the throw bar.   They could be made with the prototype reinforcement in the gauge side of the rail web for additional robustness.   
Seems like a neat system perfect for N
Charlie Vlk

[narrowminded]

Very clever.   I will be curious to see the pricing.  

At first glance it's hard to see this method being cost effective but if you added a reasonable rate for your labor to file, solder, and screw with the current method it may not be so bad.  I also think the part has the potential to be functionally much better when you have seen the difficulty of getting really fine points with the method of filing the rail to a point with the web support for the head disappearing.  (But will you be able to cast them any finer?   Yet to be seen.)  I had considered machining those kinds of parts from sheet and saw that as viable but if they can reliably hold tolerance on those castings, then with the addition of the finer details... BINGO! 

When I've suggested finished parts in other areas I have occasionally run into an objection based on it taking the hobby of doing it yourself out of the equation, killing the fun.   I'm not a subscriber to that school of thought.

[wcfn100]

I also think the part has the potential to be functionally much better when you have seen the difficulty of getting really fine points with the method of filing the rail to a point with the web support for the head disappearing.

That difficulty comes from using the wrong method.  There's a very simple way to get razor sharp points with no loss of the web.  I've shown it here multiple times.

And it's not just for points but can be used for frogs when you start getting into the higher number like #12 and above.


Jason

[CRL]

I’ve never hand laid a turnout (I have hand laid track), so I have no direct experience to draw upon, but this product seems to produce a very good looking & stable crossover and the fast tracks method certainly produces good results.

However, particularly in N-scale, the throw bar attachment point has always struck me as the weakest area. I’ve wondered if someone took some Peco code 55 rail with the double lower rail base and milled off all of the lower 0.025 base except for a small tab where the throw bar attaches. This might provide a little more meat for the throw bar attachment point, making for a more stable connection.

I’ll show myself out now. 

[wazzou]

That difficulty comes from using the wrong method.  There's a very simple way to get razor sharp points with no loss of the web.  I've shown it here multiple times.

And it's not just for points but can be used for frogs when you start getting into the higher number like #12 and above.


Jason

Since that image isn't in your gallery, maybe you should post it again.

[wcfn100]

Since that image isn't in your gallery, maybe you should post it again.

It took me a while to find them again.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


And one advantage that's not obvious looking at the drawing is that you have much more base at the point to solder to the PC ties.  An industrious person could even try and drill through the base to make more of a pivot there.

Jason

[ncbqguy]

All
Using PECO rail for hand laid points has real merit!
Thanks,
Charlie Vlk

[narrowminded]

It took me a while to find them again.

(Attachment Link)

(Attachment Link)


And one advantage that's not obvious looking at the drawing is that you have much more base at the point to solder to the PC ties.  An industrious person could even try and drill through the base to make more of a pivot there.

Jason

While I hadn't seen these but had reviewed prototype components to understand how they did it, it is basically the prototypical method and is the same approach I used while designing the fixtures for machining my code 40 and 55, N and Z turnout components.  I haven't yet completed all of the fixtures due to home projects and vacation trips interrupting the shop and machine setup since August and before.  

Here is a link to an old thread that includes a couple of pictures of the results of the very precise machined rail prep as described here and much more in the thread for anyone interested in more.  This should be seeing actual fixture machining time again in a month or so.   

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=48446.msg652953#msg652953

[jdcolombo]

I guess we should really be looking at these crossings as "kits" rather than "hand laid," but however one views it, they are really cool.  I could imagine someone doing the yard throat from Chicago's Union Station circa the 1950's with these parts . . .

With regard to switch points, I'll only say that I have a couple of #4 and #6 turnouts that I made on my layout.  The #6's were made with a Fast Tracks jig; the #4's I made with a paper template after having made a few #6's and learning the techniques.  In both cases, the point rails are NOT hinged, and I worried that the #4's would "pop" the point rails from the throwbar after a few uses.  But that just hasn't happened, going on three years now.  Maybe it's because of the silver solder I used; maybe it's because I used a slightly wider tie for the throwbar that gave me some additional soldering area to work with, or maybe I'm just lucky or all of the above.  But all of my hand-laid turnouts have had zero issues with the points breaking free from the throw bar, and all of them get used multiple times at an op session (thrown by a Tortoise switch machine).

John C.

[Chris333]

I also use a wider PC tie for all my throw bars.