I’m actually planning a little shelf layout (9’ x 18"). It represent a 1950’s industrial spur. The layout itself is small and an excuse to test some modelling and scenery technics.
I’ve been thinking about laying more prototypical tracks. The problem is that turnout choice is not very interesting. I need 4 turnouts: 2 x #6 and 2 x curved turnout, equivalent to PECO larger cuved turnout.
At some point, mixing Codes wouldn’t be a problem. Except, I really want to try to work with code 55. The commercially available curved turnouts aren’t made under code 83. I feel like it would be out of place to have code 55 mixed with a code 83 turnout. Would the difference be that much important visually? My guess is yes, much more than code 83 vs code 100.
I’m sure some people will say I could handlaid these but I feel rather unsure about that.
Code 55 is equivalent to <75# rail - which would have been embargoed to all but the lightest locomotives and some of the heavier cars in use in 1950. Typically, your main stem should be code 70, only transitioning to code 55 on the spurs past the turnout frogs.
Shinohara manufactures Code 70 turnouts - when and if you can find them.
Handlaying isn’t some mystical art performed by wizards. Even this arthritic old coot can do it - in every rail code down to code 55. My next code 55 turnouts, when I assemble them from raw rail on wood ties, will be gauged for my HOjn762 logger - 10.5mm. (My last were laid on the HOn3 part of a club layout.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on flex track with handlaid turnouts)
I’m with you on finding code 55 turnouts, but as pointed out by others, code 55 represents such light rail, most of it would be useless by the 1950’s. That said, I plan to use code 55 on my (next) layout, representing an ancient branchline serving a mine, something that (according to my semi-fictional history) had never been upgraded since it had been laid, and serving only one customer, wasn’t high priority for upgrading. I’ll probably use codes 83 and 70 for “main” and branches/yards, respectively, and code 55 off of any code 70 track for rarely-used spurs.
On the “mine branch”, I’ll probably have to use code 70 turnouts, as (like you), I’m not into handlaying track. Not that I can’t do it, I just prefer not to. It’s not all that unprototypical to use heavier rail for turnouts and crossings.
I decided to read a little about handlaying turnouts and felt it wasn’t that much complicated at all. The mechanical aspect is rather simple and seems more trouble free than commercial turnouts. Maybe it could be my 2012 resolution! Honestly, I feel like I could really make a better and smoother track arrangement that way… Anyway, this layout is for improving my skills and having a place to take good pictures of rolling stock. It may sound harsh, but all the FastTrack stuffs kept me away from that… Honestly, I like when things stay simpler. I feel like handlaying turnout is to get the right thing in the right place. If you get standard templates, you loose the customization advantage…
Now you’re making me wonder what the real size of rail should be used…
My prototype is a ridiculous (yes!) industrial spur that was about a half a mile long located near a yard. It saw little traffic, just serving a couple of light industries (oil dealers, lumber yard, team track). According to old maps, it was built somewhere around the mid-30’s. Roadbed was almost inexistant. From pictures I’ve seen, mostly aerial, the line ran in pure contaminated wasteland. For this reason, I’m sure they used old rails to make this spur and it was probably never updated until abandonment in late 60’s, early 70’s. A good comparison would be that it was backyard railroading!
Just to give you a little background, the Quebec Railway Light & Power interchange and shops were located the other side of the street. They used the same light rail (1889) until CNR acquired them in 1954 and started to replace it. This light rail was used by electric steeple engines and boxcabs, however, I’ve seen pictures showing larger steamers, mainly heavy Pacifics and other passenger engines, pulling pilgrim’s trains with trains of about twelve heavy coaches… Makes me wonder… Québec City used to be the end of the line and never saw large rail traffic, it’s still the case (located on the wrong
Chuck, according to you, I could (should) use code 70 for the switching lead and all track up to and including the turnout. The rest would be in code 55. The map I post should give you a better idea of the setting.
Anyway, since I won’t find curved turnouts in code 70 and will probably have to handlay them if I go this way, feels like it would be simpler to make all the layout in the same code, either 55 or 70. That said, I just need to set my mind on a correct code and stick with it.
Joe’s hybrid method is quite sick but really interesting. He says you can use this method to make curved turnout by adjusting the CVT ties to your specific configurations… I find this quite interesting because you can keep realistic fish plates details… I’ll see what I can do.
I personally started making turnouts using fast tracks tools and I’m having a really good time with them. If I were in HO scale (And I thought about this for quite some time before I switched to N) I would have code 83 main, code 70 sidings, and code 55 industrial, all with handlaid turnouts. Handlaid turnouts are absolutely fabulous for flow of track and reliability…I only wish I could have smaller rail in N, but manufacturers haven’t caught up with me yet! Someday wheelsets will be able to roll on code 40 track without having to change anything, consider yourself lucky to be in HO
I’ve checked many technics tonight, I was surprised how it was much more simpler than I thought. Since I doing this small layout to improve my skill, I feel it’s a good opportunity to try to handlay some track by myself. I feel like I’ve done thinks much more tricky in my life. I’ve come to a point where I think I should go with code 55. Anyway, 3 turnouts out of 4 are almost impossible to find commercially.
At some point, N scale meets mechanical limitations that are harder to overcome. However, there been giant leaps in the late years that are outstanding.
My layout is a heavy industrial switching layout set in the late 30’s early 40’s. For the main I use Central Valley tie strips and code 70 rail. For the industrial spurs I use code 55 rail. I use Central Valley switch kits for the ties and lay them with code 55 rail. The only modifications you need to make are the frogs and switch points. I get my frogs and switch points from the Proto 87: Stores. It’s at proto87.com. They have a ton of track details and info.
SInce I don’t have a lot of track to lay, I was quite interested by Central Valley ties. Their website says you need a little extra care when gauging with code 55. What’s your experience about it? Proto87 says there’s no extra work for this.
I’ve seen Joe Fugate works with PC board ties. But soldering is not for me. Do you cement your track as recommended by Central Valley? Are you satisfied with it? What’s your thought about the cast frogs? Lots of peoples like to file their own, but seems a little bit overzealous for myself (+ real prototype are cast parts).
One thing I like about Joe’s method is making the point continuous with the normal rail. However, I’m not sure cemented rail would last long under the stress. Since you use the cast points, I guess they aren’t that bad.
Last question, what about the “curvable” feature of CVT turnout? I’ve seen no picture of a curved turnout made from the CVT… I’m reallyy curious to know how it works. I reworked my layout plan and was able to keep only one curved layout, which would have fairly large radiuses (30-60"). All other will be #9. I know, I’ll be only switching 40ft cars with nothing larger than a GP, but it gives the best configuration for my space and industries, anyway, that layout is meant to be something like a operation diorama.
Looks like I’ve got a lot of research to do before I settle for a system.
Have you looked around on the CV web site? They have many photos of their turnouts in action. Soldering is a lot easier than you may think. I use the CV ties for my branch and turnouts. Mostly code 70 but I have done a code 55 number 4.5. I make my own frogs and throw bars. I also used the drill press and a file at work to make 3 track gauges out of a piece of brass 3/8 round stock. Use the NMRA gauge to check them.
I spike my rail and use a railcraft track gauge to keep everything in gauge. The base of the 55 rail is just alittle bit narrower than code 70. Be careful when laying track through the switch, always check with a NMRA standards gauge for proper clearances. I used the frog from the CV switch kit on most of my switches by sanding down the bottom of the frog to match the rail height of the 55 rail. On the the last switch I did with 55 rail I used one of Andys cast frogs by glueing and spiking it in a couple places. If you’re looking for scale spikes I found about the closest to scale spikes were the ones from Micro-Mark. If you plan on spikeing invest in their spikeing pliers, they make a world of differance.On the next turnout I do (when I start laying track again) I plan on trying to make my own point (closure)rails and soldering them to a PC throwbar. I want to try this so the points have power all the way from the frog. I have 4 curved turnouts (with code 70 rail I haven’t needed one in 55 yet) and they are just as easy to make as straight turnouts. All you do is cut some of the webbing on the turnout ties. Follow CV’s instructions, if I remember right the curve can only curve towards the diverging route and not away. As far as how do I like CV ties, the answer is I won’t use anything else. I wish I knew how to post pics on this site, I would have attached a couple. What are you going to use to throw the turnouts?
Glad I coiuld help, before you buy the cast frog try sanding the bottom of the frog that comes with the switch kit. The only reason I used a cast frog was I just wanted to try one. The cast frogs look a little better but don’t perform any better. How do you plan on throwing the points?
Didn’t buy anything yet. Want to sort out evry aspect of what I’m trying to do before!
The shelf will only have 4 turnouts, all near the fascia. I’ll probably use live frog because the turnouts are fairly long and I may want to run small steam. Going tortoise seems a little bit over the top for a shelf this size. However, I don’t want manual unprototypical switches. In the past, I used piano wire assemblies to throw the points under the roadbed. Worked nicely with PECO but I also used this technic, with slight modifications, to throw standard unsprung points. It was with insulfrog. Sure, the tortoise would save a lot of trouble for wiring…
I am glad you are following your thread and replying to the responders. There are so many that post a question and we never hear from them again.
I make my own frogs from the rail I use for the turnout. Making a simple jig using a block of wood and some tacks to hold the rail in alignment is simple to do. You can print full size templates of turnouts and glue them to the block. Since I glue all my rail using Pliobond cement I can make my frogs very short. Most of my frogs are about a half inch long. The approach rails to the frog is electrically connected to the stock rail next to it. Leaving the very short point of the frog isolated has never given me any problems. Even if I run a closed turnout from the wrong direction there is still no short. Another thing I do is three way file the points so I don’t have to file any stock rail base.
Here is a good representation of how I file my points.
That’s called politeness! And I’m still in brainstorming process right now.
I thought about making my own jig for the frog just liek you said. Thanks for your tips, it was worth to check it. Code 55 is so small that this kind of problems mst be addressed.
Maybe the best thing I could do would be to try my hand on a first turnout and see how things work from me. Anyway, it won’t be lost.
When I started using the CV ties I tried several adhesives. The Pliobond from the tube works extremely well. I picked up some plastic tips that fit the tube and run a very thin bead down the rail. I then place it on the ties and take it up about a half inch then set it again. With just a little compression with my thumb running it back and forth really makes it bond. After a couple years so far there has been no rail movement at all.
Like I said before I’m doing an industrial switching layout which so far has 19 switches in the first 20 feet so I needed something cheap but easy to build. I use Rix PTL’s and radio control airplane rods with a 3/4 inch dowel 1 inch long laying on end with a nail through the center attached to a 3/4 by 3/4 square riser screwed to the facia… Everything is under the benchwork and the setup keeps presure on the points. If your interested let me know and I’ll send you a pic.
Honestly, I feel like I could really make a better and smoother track arrangement that way… Anyway, this layout is for improving my skills and having a place to take good pictures of rolling stock. It may sound harsh, but all the FastTrack stuffs kept me away from that… Honestly, I like when things stay simpler. I feel like handlaying turnout is to get the right thing in the right place. If you get standard templates, you loose the customization advantage…