Proto87

Thee was a post earlier about jointed rail details, Proto87 was named as a supplier. So I went to there web site and found they have parts to build turnouts. My question is does anyone have any experience with the ready made frogs. Or any comments about the remainder of supplies to make turnouts?
Thanks Doug

 

Doug, Yeah...I've use all of the Proto87Stores turnout building super detail parts. I've been building my own turnouts since the early '80's, so I've got some very specific ways that I do it, none of which include jigs or fixtures, either hand-built or purchased.

The problem areas in my turnout builds in N-scale have always been at the throwbar and I've experimented with several possible solutions to making reliable and prototype-looking closure point heelblock hinges and attaching the closure points to a PCB throwbar that look prototypical and were 100% reliable.

Andy's N-scale parts solved some of my problems, but I had to come up with a closure point attachment solution on my own.

Since I use both code 55 and code 40 rail to represent mainline and siding/branchline tracks, I discovered that Andy's frets of turnout superdetailing parts only work as designed on code 40 rails. Other parts, such as his etched throwbar/heelblock hinge frets work great on code 55 and 40 (the hinges, not the throwbars).

I also don't believe that turnouts that are merely glued together are rugged enough for my portable layout, so I use a lot of PCB ties to make sure they are rugged rather than gluing turnouts together as Andy recommends.

I don't have a problem manufacturing frogs for my turnouts, but I wanted to give Andy's N-scale frog kits a try since I hoped they'd look more prototypical. I found that they are difficult to put together, and if you're soldering them to PCB ties, they have a tendency to come apart unless you're very cautious. So, out of the seven frog kits I purchased, I only used one of the frog kits.

Also, the top of the wingrails on the frogs are noticeably narrower than the width of the railhead on code 55 track, which doesn't affect their operation, just the way they look.

A couple of friends of mine who lay their own turnouts also use Andy's frogs to save time, but they pay the extra bucks and order them pre-assembled...which still doesn't fix the wing rail railhead width problem.

I will just manufacture my own frogs until Andy comes out with cast NS N-scale code 55 and 40 frogs (if ever) with all the bolthead detailing if they look better than what I can manufacture myself.

I also was not impressed with Andy's throwbar solution for N-scale turnouts, none of which I used.

However I really like the hinges. Not only do they look good, they also function flawlessly. I will use them on all future turnouts I build, and the frets don't cost much. I wish Andy would offer them without his throwbar solution, since I end up paying for parts I will never use.

I also used the tri-planed closure points, which needed a lot of clean up with a file, but work great and allow a much more protypical looking turnout because I don't have to file off any of the railfoot on the adjacent stock rails. The only thing I don't like are the pre-drilled holes in them for HO scale throwbars which I don't use. The holes aren't located in any N-scale usable location, so I fill them with solder and file them smooth. They're also expensive at nearly 10 bucks for a set.

I have seven frets of turnout superdetail tieplates, and because I construct my mainline code 55 turnouts on PCB ties, the problem with using any of these details is twofold. One, they're designed for a code 40 railfoot, which is considerably narrower than code 55, so they would have to be split in half and inserted from either side on every turnout tie to look right. That's easily said, but when you see the actual size of these miniscule parts, you'll have second thoughts as to whether that effort would be worth it. Two, on code 40 PCB turnouts, you'd have to solder three layers of metal (rail, tieplate & PCB tie) all at the same time. This could be accomplished by tinning the PCB tie, or the center part of the tieplate, then using tweezers on a resistance soldering station, hold and heat the pieces (with flux) to get the solder to flow, then back off the power, hold and release. I can do this since I use a 250W American Beauty Resistance Soldering Station as my primary soldering heat source for my turnout fabrication.

As you can see, the effort needed to use these lovely superdetail parts is more than twice what just building a non-superdetailed turnout will be...maybe even three times the effort (time).

Another solution (and the one I am going to use) is to build my PCB turnouts the regular way, then cut the etched tieplates at the "spikeheads" and just lay these details alongside the railfoot on each tie.

Here's a photo of some recent turnouts under construction with emphasis on the heelblock hinges which are shown here without the closure points yet installed:


Here's a photo of the switch on my #4 Wye which includes the Proto87Stores heelblock hinges and the tri-planed closure points with the pre-drilled holes, which I have to fill later:


Here are a couple of closups of my throwbar solution, which works 100% reliably so far (3 years) and looks pretty prototypical after the turnouts are installed, added details are applied and they're painted, weathered and ballasted:




Hope this helps you out!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

 

Bob,
Thanks for the information and pictures. Having never built a turnout but wanting to start I have a lot of questions. Look like your throwbar solution is sturdy, a mechanical and soldered connection. What size is the wire? Does the fold-over of wire on the bottom cause any problems?
I hope to build a 16 ft by 20 ft building next year for a layout. Will have heat and a/c and a bathroom. I don't have any plans for the layout yet, but I am thinking of 2 ft wide modules for the track, sort of like the N-track standard.
Thanks Doug

 

Doug,

Yup, it IS sturdy but the soldered parts don't experience much torque, which will kill any soldered joint that is constantly torqued one way, then the other every time you throw the switch. Most protocols simply call for soldering what's left of the closure point rail bases (after you've filed most everything else away to get that nice, sharp point on the closure point toes) to a PCB tie. when I first started building my own turnouts many years ago in code 70 (to match my Railcraft Code 70 mainlines on three dedicated Ntrak modules), I wanted hinges for the closure points, so I filed notches in the closure point rails on either side of the rails with a V shaped jeweler's file, leaving only the rail web to act as a hinge. Well, that worked great as a hinge, but because there was no forward/backward motion in the "hinges" (only very slight angular changes), the combination of the solid hinges at what would be the heelblock positions plus being soldered solidly to a PCB throwbar at the closure point toes caused all the torque from that slight angular change to be taken at the slim tips of the closure point toes, and they broke after a few months of operation.

I just resoldered them, which was not a big deal, but every show, I'd have to break out the soldering iron three or four times to fix my hand-laid turnouts' closure points. After a few times of doing that, the copper cladding on the PCB throwbar would de-laminate, and I'd have to change it out...much more of a PIA than just resoldering the closure point toes since I had to remove the Tortoise underneath and reposition the throw-wire into the .020" hole in the throwbar. Luckily I had two young sons who did the under-module squatting and repositioning, while I stayed on top, guiding the operation by giving voice commands. Not so fun.

However, my hand-laid turnouts worked great...much smoother and better looking than any code 80 commercially available RTR turnouts in N-gauge, and I could always repair them pretty easily with just tweezers and my soldering iron when one of the closure points would break off the throwbar.

A couple of years later, the club went in a new direction and we scrapped Ntrak, and developed our own modular standards, one of which was to use Railcraft code 55 mainline trackage (the only code 55 flextrack available in the mid-80's), build our own turnouts and allow hand-laid code 40 for sidings and branchlines.

I thought I'd found the solution to the throwbar problem by bending the closure point tips at a right angle inward, filing off everything except the rail foot which gave me a huge pad to solder to my PCB throwbars. I still used the notch-the-closure-point-rails hinges because they were reliable, sturdy and provided faultless electrical continuity. Guess what? On the code 55 turnouts, ALL of the new closure points would periodically come unsoldered...even with the big right-angle soldering pad. On the code 40 turnouts, with their skinnier rails, I had/have zero problems.

Here's a photo of my second generation bent closure point soldering pad protocol, which I consider a failure on code 55 turnouts with the notch-hinged closure rails:


I also never liked the non-prototypical look of the throwbars and their unprototypical position past the closure point toes.

So, I lived with the problem for several years, but thought about the problem and how to fix it. It became pretty obvious that the problem was the COMBINATION of the soldered closure point toes on the PCB throwbars AND the rigid "notch" hinges. My code 40 turnouts, because the filed-down closure point rails would flex, didn't have the solder joint-breaking problem. I assumed that to get my code 55 turnouts to be more reliable, I'd have to modify each turnouts with new, separate closure points and a hinge like on the new (at the time) Railcraft code 55 #6 turnouts, which were essentially just flattened rail joiners.

With my decision to convert to DCC and to form a new, much more prototypical appearing modular standard for N-scale, I spent about three years developing the new modular standard, designing my portable home layout (which I could easily break down and take to train shows in the Utah/Wyoming/Idaho area) which called for the building of several new modules/LDE's that were based on prototype Union Pacific scenes and would require more turnouts to be built.

A couple of years before that, Andy Reichert had introduced his product line, and a couple of my fellow train-nuts and I had been mulling his throwbar solution over in our heads in our discussion groups and get togethers. Andy had not introduced his heelblock hinges yet, but when he did, I jumped on the opportunity and ordered seven sets of them to see how they'd work.

I hoped that his throwbar solutions would work also, but interestingly (and ironically) Andy's throwbar protocol and parts work on hand-laid N-scale turnouts that don't have hinged closure points and rely on "spring action" to keep the closure point toes pressed against his etched "throwbars". Why package them together on the same fret???? Hinges and throwbar accoutrements that only work where there aren't hinges. Andy has yet to answer my questions about that.

So, I spent about two days developing my new throwbar protocol which uses .015" brass wire inserted through matching holes in the rail foot & PCB throwbar, bent over underneath and bent to shape on top and soldered to the PCB throwbar top on either side of the electrical gap on top.

I make sure that there's clearance for the bent wires underneath by filing away the Midwest Cork Roadbed at those points, and I plan on flattening these ends and soldering them in the rest of my remaining two dozen turnouts for this phase of my layout construction.

I've installed six turnouts built this way and will be installing a seventh next week for the small trailing point siding at Emory Center Siding where UP parks certain MOW cars and equipment.

Andy's frets of superdetail turnout parts include some incredibly small throwbar parts that I'm thinking seriously about attempting to incorporate on these turnouts. I also have produced lost-wax cast brass working switchstands whose targets will turn as the Tortoises underneath throw the points.

'Nuff about hand-laid track. My layout room is about 10.5' X 27', which is only large enough to hold parts of my overall planned 30' X 30' finished modular layout. Under construction in it are 11 modules, some of which are "transition" modules to allow setup of about half of my train room setup together with my train buddy Gregg Cuddworth's 24' of modules, which are built to my modular specs.

When I finish with these LDE's, I'll remove some of them (or all of them) and store them in my garage or my trailer, and start in building more layout sections.

My "standard" module is 3' X 6', but some are shorter and some longer and are not designed to be completely interchangeable as many are dedicated to each other. However, each LDE is "modular" and can generally be moved to several layout locations if needed. Some sections are narrower than 3', and some are wider, but at "standard ends" they are all 3' wide from the back of the skyboard support structure to the front edge of the flowing laminated Masonite fascia.

When I started building modules back in my Ntrak days (a long time ago) I didn't know much about train operation or track planning. I just wanted something realistic, so I took prototype track plans and locations, shortened them up and modeled those specific areas. This was a lucky accident, because when the club decided to emphasize operation, my modular designs (based on prototype track plans) worked flawlessly because they were modeled pretty exactly after real railroad locations.

Now, that I've been at it for over 30 years, my knowledge about track planning has improved, but I still am modeling actual locations and I've settled on an "era" also which is early Summer 1951 for structures, track plans and railroad facilities, and between 1948 to December 31, 1956 as far as trains, motive power, rolling stock, billboards, vehicles and what the humans are wearing.

My locale is the 65 mile "helper district" between Ogden Utah and Wahsatch Utah, known as "The Wasatch Grade" which all of UP's big engines were built to conquer and never did until the introduction of the Big Boys (in my chosen era) Challengers and Turbines, along with first and second generation diesels pulling trains together with 3700 class Challenger helpers on the rear.

Being this specific in my location and era has saved me a lot of money some ways (I don't even consider anything that doesn't fit my scenario), but luckily has cost me in purchasing over a dozen Athearn Big Boys and Challengers to run through Weber and Echo Canyons I'm modeling, just like the prototype did.

Another way I've saved money is by manufacturing my own turnouts. I can build a basic #8 turnout for less than two dollars. When I add in Andy's parts, the price goes up to about 11 bucks, which is still not bad because usually nothing is available RTR in Code 55 that would work except the Micro Engineering #6's. Atlas Code 55 turnouts look pretty good, but have a weird, shortened configuration between the frog and closure point toes which makes the effective diverging radius significantly smaller than it should be. This is especially evident in their #5's and #10's.

So, your idea of building a modular layout is a good idea. But, you don't have to build to any established modular group's standards if the track spacing and number don't fit your desires. I have problems with some of Ntrak's standards, such as their ridiculous and problem causing joiner track protocol between modules and the 2' width. Also, the railhead to floor height is waaaaay to low for me, and most serious model railroaders when building single-level layouts are going with a 50" to 56" railhead to floor height. I also don't like the 3-track mainline requirement, which fits the "run run run trains" show concept, but doesn't fit too many USA prototype railroads actual practices.

Having your own layout building is going to be totally GREAT! I'd recommend buying a top-of-the-line model railroad specific CAD program to use to plan your benchwork and layout. If you're versed in a good commercial CAD program that's great. If not, I use Cadrail and it's worked fabulously for me, so I recommend it. I just won't build anything without working on it in Cadrail first since it takes the doubt out of the equation and allows me to quickly modify my plans when I get a brainstorm.

Here's what's in my train room now. Yup, it's crowded and not ideal, but I'll have these three LDE's finished sometime this coming year, then I'll start in on my Ogden/Riverdale LDE's...which will take a couple of years to complete with both my son and I working on them.

This is a converted Cadrail file and shows my Echo Yard/Park City Yard LDE, my Echo Cliffs LDE and my Devil's Slide/Wilhemina Pass LDE:


Here's a photo of my Wilhemina Pass LDE:


Here's a photo of Echo Curve, just east of the Echo Coaling Tower and Echo Station:


Minimum mainline radius is 24", Micro Engineering code 55 flextrack, short mild grades allowed, Digitrax DCC only.

I'll look forward to more information as your layout plans progress. Sounds like very interesting project, but you've got a lot of research and work ahead of you. FUN!

Sorry about the length of this post, but I've got the flu, and I'm at home with nothing to do but attend my fever and cough my guts out. Thanks for keeping me busy!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

 

Bob,
Again great information. Some of my wants are double track mainline, passing sidings,yard, engine service, coal mine,ice house.Some towns fuel storage, rivers and some where a curved wooden bridge. Here is a rough drawing of what i am thinking about for bench work. Lumber comes standard in 6 &8 ft lengths, so i will probably use 6 ft by 2 ft for the modules. Longer than N-track standard but still can be moved, not sure if 8 ft can be handled. No i do not use any cad program but one of my sons and his wife are booth auto cad users, so when i settle on a plan hopefully the will draw something for me.