Atlas code 55 track product line

[Jimbo]

I appreciate using ME track, but still interested in learning to hand lay curves. Any YouTube resources out there that I haven't been able to find?

Frankly, I’d suggest using M-E for all track - curves and otherwise.  Hand-lay only the turnouts & specialty track pieces (e.g. crossings.). Hand laying actual track is TEDIOUS.  And it’s more expensive, since you have to buy individual ties.  And it doesn’t look as good as flex, because it lacks spike and tie plate details.

As far as turnouts, YES - handlay!!!  Best decision I’ve made regarding track!  They look and work great; I’ve made some using paper templates and track gages, along with Fast Tracks Pointform and StockAid tools, in both code 55 and code 40.

If someone like ME can do it, then practically anyone can!

Jim

(Fast tracks has a nice set of videos on how to use their fixtures, which also give a good idea how turnouts are constructed.  Another YouTube channel is Handlaid Tracks and 3D Printed Trains - guy is from Holland and has designed tools and fixtures for various handlaying projects.  Hope this helps!)

[NtheBasement]

I've concluded that Peco's "North American" line is a never ending carrot on a stick, and that with the current world business "climate" - we won't see it any time soon.

Agreed.

My current layout is 30+ years old, back when c55 pickings were very slim.  On my previous layout I found that the Peco c80 turnouts were an order of magnitude more reliable than Atlas's, so I went with surgically altered Peco c55 turnouts and ME flex.  Years later Atlas introduced their c55 line and I needed a curved turnout.  Theirs was the only one on the market.  The thing was beautiful compared to the Peco, some real modelling art.  But holy *$# was that thing delicate.  You could look at it cross-eyed and a point rail would jump off.  My rule number one is reliability first, otherwise its frustrating instead of fun.  I ended up tossing it.

In the ideal world Peco would introduce a new c55 line with US-sized ties.  (Are ties in Britain really that huge?)  But the price they would have to sell it is entirely dependent on tariffs that can randomly and arbitrarily change at any moment.  So what happens if Peco goes into debt (aka bets the farm) on this new US line and then 100% tariffs get imposed?  Bye bye Peco.  If you were the CEO, would you take the risk?

[robert3985]

Frankly, I’d suggest using M-E for all track - curves and otherwise.  Hand-lay only the turnouts & specialty track pieces (e.g. crossings.). Hand laying actual track is TEDIOUS.  And it’s more expensive, since you have to buy individual ties.  And it doesn’t look as good as flex, because it lacks spike and tie plate details.

As far as turnouts, YES - handlay!!!  Best decision I’ve made regarding track!  They look and work great; I’ve made some using paper templates and track gages, along with Fast Tracks Pointform and StockAid tools, in both code 55 and code 40.

If someone like ME can do it, then practically anyone can!

Jim

(Fast tracks has a nice set of videos on how to use their fixtures, which also give a good idea how turnouts are constructed.  Another YouTube channel is Handlaid Tracks and 3D Printed Trains - guy is from Holland and has designed tools and fixtures for various handlaying projects.  Hope this helps!)

Okay, handlaying "track" IS expensive, particularly because of the PCB ties you buy.  However, you CAN cut your own PCB ties, which several N-scale hand-layers do here at TRW, particularly I remember @Sumner does this, and probably has instructions on how he did it.  That's why I agree that for "track" use ME Code55 and Code40 (with lo-pro wheelsets on the Code40)...ME Code40 Flex-Trak being incompatible with any sort of pizza cutters, while ME Code55 Flex-Trak is totally compatible with pizza cutters. 

On my layout, portions of it were built back in the days when they were dedicated modules in a larger Club Layout, and so had to be compatible with other members' pizza cutters, so I hand-laid ALL of my Code40 trackage...which runs pizza cutters with zero interference (Actual Code40 rail height is 0.044" while the tallest pizza cutters in the club were 0.0365" tall, leaving 0.0075" of clearance).

Since the club disbanded a couple of decades ago, my club modules got modified a bit to fit into my sectional/modular home layout, and now, since I don't have any engines or rolling stock that possess pizza cutter wheelsets, my sidings & industrual spurs are all Rail Craft Code40 flex (I have an ample stash of Rail Craft Flex).

The statement that handlaid "track" (between turnouts) "...doesn't look as good as flex because it lacks spike and tie plate details..."  this statement has caveats.  The main caveat is that handlaid "track" doesn't look as good as Micro Engineering Flex-Trak..which has the best-looking spike and tie plate details of ANY commercially manufactured N-scale track product.  ME Flex-Trak is by far the best-looking (most prototypical looking) N-scale track being made, and that's in Code70, Code55 and Code40.

However, in actual practice, handlaid "track" between handlaid turnouts, actually looks pretty good, even without spike & tie plate details...and I would say it looks better that any N-scale track product other than Micro Engineering's...especially if you're going to model neglected, lightly trafficked siding/spur trackage with Code40.  On my layout, my Park City Branch leaves Echo Junction headed south, with the mainline (Code55 Rail Craft) Echo Curve curving eastward towards Evanston and Green River, with the Code40 handlaid trackage curving off on an embankment heading towards Coalville, and other small mining communities including Park City.  From a modeling aspect this means that both the commercial flex and the handlaid trackage run parallel for a short distance, each curving apart just east of the Echo Coaling Tower...and frankly, nobody ever notices or comments about the handlaid Code40 trackage's lack of spike & tie plate details.

In fact, when I take photos of my rolling stock & motive power projects, I pose them on the Park City Branch handlaid Code40 trackage because it looks good...even without spike & tie plate details...OR maybe because of the lack of those details in N-scale, which, even on ME/Rail Craft flex, are grossly oversized...and the superelevated Rail Craft Code55 Flex is closely in the background...

Photo (1) - Handlaid Code40 Park City Branch with Rail Craft Flex Code55 mainlines in the background:


Some actually argue that a complete lack of spikeheads and tie plate details is more realistic than grossly oversized representations since these detail on prototype railroads, as far as size is concerned, are relatively small enough to escape notice...which might be true since Atlas55's grossly oversized blobs (supposedly representing spikes & tie plates) jump out and smack me across my face in close-up photos, and also in not-so-close-up photos...whereas the lack of those details doesn't.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Sumner]

...... @Sumner does this, and probably has instructions on how he did it....

They are dirt cheap easy and fast to make once you have made a few.....

https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/Trackwork/page-4.html

...... ...OR maybe because of the lack of those details in N-scale.....Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

I took mechanical drafting in high school, St. Louis county, not to far from McDonnell Aircraft.  The teacher was well respected and if you took two years and had good grades you were assured a job at McDonnell.  He was super picky.  You could finish a drawing and take it up to him and he would grade it and talk to you about it right there.  If you missed one dimension that was needed to build the part he let you know. 

I finish a drawing and thought I'll take it up and get it graded right now.  As soon as I give him the drawing I notice that I never dimensioned it (not a single dimension).  He never noticed and I got a good grade on it.  I figured since there where no dimensions he somehow missed them altogether vs. having some and he looked for what you missed.

Kind of what you implied to.

Sumner

[jagged ben]

...
Some actually argue that a complete lack of spikeheads and tie plate details is more realistic than grossly oversized representations since these detail on prototype railroads, as far as size is concerned, are relatively small enough to escape notice......

A real spikehead would be about 0.009" across and 0.003" high above the rail web.  If you took my calipers, asked me to close my eyes, set them to 0.003" and then asked me to open my eyes and tell you whether you had done that or left them at zero, I'd need to hold them up to the light and then I could barely tell. 

Which is to say I agree with this. 

[jagged ben]

Also regarding PCB ties, I looked up whether CloverHouse was still taking orders and ... dang. 

[NtheBasement]

A real spikehead would be about 0.009" across and 0.003" high above the rail web.  If you took my calipers, asked me to close my eyes, set them to 0.003" and then asked me to open my eyes and tell you whether you had done that or left them at zero, I'd need to hold them up to the light and then I could barely tell. 

Which is to say I agree with this.

Same thing with rivets and with mortar lines in brick - a half inch deep mortar line should be the thickness of a sheet of copier paper in N scale.  if they were to scale you would not see them so they make them absurdly oversized.

[Maletrain]

The problem with "fine scale" in N scale is that our eyes/brains behave differently than a camera.  We see contrasts as elements that are bigger than they really are.  And, when our brains expect to see something, we tend to notice its absence. So, no rivets looks odd, but too big rivets looks OK.

Things like N scale grab irons and railings, which are often about 7/8" diameter, would scale to about 0.005" wire.  But, a model that does not have oversized representations looks nude in N scale.  On the other hand, a macro photo of a typical N scale car shows the grabs to be much too thick.

Compounding that is that we are accustomed to seeing models with non-prototypical dimensions, and our awareness sort of skips over that - it really isn't a revelation.  At least until you take a macro photo.

For track, the things that stick out for me in macro photos are a combination of too large spike heads and the complete lack or rail joint plates at 39 scale foot intervals along the rails.  (I model before welded rails.)  But, when just running trains, I don't pay attention to either, although I can still see both.

[Jimbo]

I think we are all basically saying the same thing… use Micro Engineering flex track where you can, and hand lay the turnouts and crossings.

It’s the best balance of cost, appearance, reliability, and time investment required.

(Full disclosure, though… I have no problem with scavenging the rail from old Atlas code 55 track for use in constructing turnouts; I use it for the point rails since it’s “springier” than M-E rail.  Not sure if it really matters, though… I’m sure @robert3985 would have a thought!  And I’m most curious to read it!  )

Jim

[dandopinski]

Years ago I built a switching module using hand laid code 40 rail and switches. I was inspired by an article in MRR -1975(?). I used pliobond to affix the rail to the ties. You let the pliobond dry on the rail and then with a soldering iron you heat the rail onto the ties. It makes for a VERY good attachment. I stored that module in the garage one year where the temperature ranged between -20C and +30C with no effect on the track.

[davefoxx]

Years ago I built a switching module using hand laid code 40 rail and switches. I was inspired by an article in MRR -1975(?). I used pliobond to affix the rail to the ties. You let the pliobond dry on the rail and then with a soldering iron you heat the rail onto the ties. It makes for a VERY good attachment. I stored that module in the garage one year where the temperature ranged between -20C and +30C with no effect on the track.

I’m not surprised.  I used a soldering iron to cure Pliobond on my handlaid track, which, if I remember correctly, the folks at Fast Tracks described as “vulcanization.”  So, it will probably take a temperature a lot hotter than 30 degrees Celsius to melt that bond.

DFF

[robert3985]

Years ago I built a switching module using hand laid code 40 rail and switches. I was inspired by an article in MRR -1975(?). I used pliobond to affix the rail to the ties. You let the pliobond dry on the rail and then with a soldering iron you heat the rail onto the ties. It makes for a VERY good attachment. I stored that module in the garage one year where the temperature ranged between -20C and +30C with no effect on the track.

A looong time ago when I decided to build a couple of dedicated 6' NTRAK modules, using Rail Craft Code70 flex for the mainlines and hand laying my turnouts...with Rail Craft Code55 Flex for the sidings and industrial spur...with hand laid turnouts, I had assisted a year or so earlier helping to build some HO Code70 turnouts on a friend's 1890's era layout, but I really didn't know anything about it except N-scale wasn't going to allow the use of spikes like the HO turnouts did...and that an NMRA "gage" was going to be necessary.

However, I remembered reading an article in Model Railroader Magazine a few years earlier about N-scale turnouts and trackage in Code40, so I expended the energy to look in my stacks of Model Railroader Magazines at the issues that had a glossary of each year's articles, and after half a dozen searches, found the articles I wanted, both of them in the February 1976 Model Railroader, by Larry Kazoyan and Gordon Odegard.

Larry's version used Pliobond to affix rails to wooden ties, and Gordy's was the PCB tie method.

I tried both methods, and decided that the Odegard PCB method was more precise since I was already well experienced with constructing brass models using solder.

Photo (1) - Photo snip of the table of contents of the February 1976 issue of Model Railroader Magazine:


I even went so far as to make a 3-prong gauge as per Larry Kazoyan's printed plans & instructions, which I still have and use.  I like it better than the half dozen Rail Craft 3 prong cast white metal ones that I have in Code70, Code55 and Code40.

I never found it necessary to glue my Code40 rails to my wooden ties, that PCB ties every fifth tie was plenty.  For me, my wooden tie material was/is a bit taller than my Rail Craft PCB tie strips, so after gluing all my ties down and my PCB ties every fifth tie...and all is completely dry, I lightly sand the tops of my wooden ties so that after a few strokes, my sanding block just kisses the tops of the PCB ties...meaning the wooden ties and PCB ties are, after sanding, extremely close to exactly the same height.

After I solder on my Code40 rails, solder on under-the-railfoot 22AWG solid copper feeders, paint, weather and ballast it all...I find that the ballast cement attaches the rails to the wooden tie surfaces, gluing by accident with a desired outcome.  I used to use Liquitex Matte Medium mixed with water as my chosen ballast glue, but started getting white, powdery deposits after the water evaporated.  Elmer's White Glue is brittle compared to artist's Matte Medium, but then I discovered Mod Podge Matte...and the white, powdery deposits ceased to be a problem, and the Mod Podge bonds the railfoot to my ties with a strong, slightly flexible bond as well as completely doing away with any Elmer's White Glue sheen.

I still have about 12' of Park City Yard that isn't ballasted yet, so the rails aren't glued to the ties yet, but, they remain attached, not bent, still secure just attached to the PCB ties every fifth tie...and this is in spite of my layout being broken down and transported to various shows then set up again at home quite a few times over the past 15 years.

So. although Pliobond forms a very robust and permanent bond between the railfoot and the wooden ties, unless you're not using PCB ties every fifth tie, I don't think it's necessary.

By the way, Gordy's article was what gave me the information I needed to get started building my own turnouts...without any available jigs or fixtures st the time, just paper templates.

Although the Odegard article was what inspired and informed me enough to get started building my own turnouts, it didn't take me long to determine that the NMRA Recommended Practices were not 100% necessary or even not optimal for operation as well as appearance.  So, even though I religiously use my NMRA clearance gauges when constructing my turnouts, other aspects of them, such as guard rail and frog dimensions and point rail lengths have been reduced to scale dimensions, which assists greatly for smooth and reliable flow of engines and cars through my turnouts...with the caveat being that cars and engines must be nearly perfectly gauged before running on my layout.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Sumner]

At this point in life and trying to determine the best use of the time I'll still be here none of my turnouts that are in staging or other out of sight areas get wooden ties and I don't believe they really add any addition strength to the turnout that is needed besides the PCB ties.  I also usually use a few more of those than what are shown on a Fast Tracks template or a fixture  (add ties at the ends for turnouts built in a fixture).

Fast Tracks recommends wood ties be put on with Pliobond.  I find it a real pain in the a$$ to work with.  I now use CA....turn the turnout upside down.... run a very small bead of CA on the rail and put the ties on at full length with tweezers.  I just eyeball them, if you put the PCB ties in the right place using the template it is easy to do.  Set the turnout aside and let the glue set.  Then cut the ties to length.  If any fall off during cutting the ends I glue them back or slide them in under the turnout when it is put in place.  I also don't try and glue the ties leading up to the points to avoid gluing the points in place.  Slide those under when installing the turnout.  Then a put a couple drops of CD on their middle sides to glue them to the roadbed.  I might never make it to the ballast stage but do have ballast if I do. 

I still have tons to do before trains will be running over the whole layout and can't get bogged down trying to make perfect turnouts with ties placed at perfect intervals and doubt the real ones were perfect between the 1930's an 1970's.

Sumner

[Chris333]

When you solder rails held with CA they just fall right off. You break the bond with heat just like Loctite.

[sirenwerks]

I am curious, I saw several Railwire members, IIRC, playing with 3D printing ties for tracklaying. Did that idea go on unresolved or as unworkable? I always thought that would was a neat solution for all of the regular turnouts and crossovers we don't have, as well as specialty needs. I should have saved those posts.
Edit: I found one of the topics I was thinking of https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=48446.0