A letter in the current NMRA magazine regarding the non-prototypical height of Z scale rail got me thinking. I was wondering if people were using code 40 rail with hand-laid track? I know David K. did some code 40 (or perhaps smaller) for a diorama he showed in 2012. It looked quite good, but I was wondering about the operating characteristics. Mark
Several have been using it, some for all lines, some only for spurs or visible lines. Flanges clear, if you don't have anything on the inside of the rail, e.g. soldered to a PC board. The reduced rail head with is the biggest obstacle. Less electrical pickup and, *any* gauge variance and you'll be dropping an axle. Temperature range is critical.
The timing on this is uncanny. I literally just posted this morning, only a few hours before your post, about my Nn3 tipper cars but of more interest here, the Code 40 flex tie bed I made for my Nn3 project, and just saying it now, I will be making Z scale as well as HOn30 and N scale. It's basically hand laid track but the bed acts like flex track and has tie plate detail for appearance that also puts the track perfectly in gauge. It's pretty easy to work with. There will be no flange height clearance issues at least on later stuff because it's Z scale wheel dimensions to NMRA RP-25 standards that Nn3 utilizes and the guides leave basically .030" above the guides. The guides only catch the lower rail flange which is about .008" and the rail is .043" high (not the .040" that the code would suggest) and the guides are just about .005" above the lower flange face. Plenty to guide the rail, not suffering from grossly oversized "spike heads" (but necessary by the method that flex utilizes), so very clean looking for the finicky. It also has tie plates that are hard to see by scale but could be painted for detail or could show favorably in some close-up photographs. This leaves about .028" to .030" rail height above the ties for flange clearance. The flanges I've made for my stuff and what FVM wheels are is .016" deep (I'm going from memory but I think it's accurate for FVM) and the NMRA standard specifies a maximum depth of .020". Old pizza cutters, I'm not so sure and don't have any of the old stuff to check. But I'll bet somebody here knows. I wasn't going to announce this until I had those scales made and also put together instructions for use. Basically you lay the tie bed, glued down with carpenter's glue, and then use Pliobond, a common and very reliable method for rail attachment in hand laid track and hand laid turnouts. The thread I posted this in is the "What's On Your Workbench" in the Narrow Gauge forum. Here is a picture I just took with my phone to attach here showing a piece of that track made up with my Nn3 tippers on it. If those tippers are of interest there's a little more about them in that other post. They could also be used as regular Z tippers as those cars were built in a large range of sizes. In the foreground is the Code 40 flex tie bed track and in the background is Rokuhan standard track as well as a slightly larger version of the tipper cars:
There shouldn't be any more chance of dropping a wheel as the inside of the rail is in the same location as any other code. A problem like that would be the result of plain old bad track gauge dimension. And as far as less electrical contact, they ride on an edge anyway, towards the inside, and by plan dictated by the 3 degree wheel tread taper. The item that can cause wheel drops is when the track isn't in gauge and there is an attempt to run narrow tread wheels. They look better but the track gauge better be pretty good to have success with those, regardless of rail code. Edit add: And while I wasn't worried about the tie clearance based on other experience with code 40, it hadn't occurred to me to just measure my track vs: Atlas code 55 track. Because the Atlas is true flex track and uses spike heads to retain the rail and afford the slip, the clearance on the code 55 is actually the same as my code 40 which doesn't use the spike head. It hadn't occurred to me to measure this until the issue was raised and it made me think about it.
I like the look of that. 3d-printed? Price? Any plans to produce turnout ties a la Central Valley turnout ties https://www.cvmw.com/turnouts.htm ?
I have only given a cursory look at the Z items at this point as my original focus is an Nn3 project but the addition of Z is a natural progression from that point and is intended to be pursued. And the general concept isn't very different from the CV system and is in fact a concept that I had as far back as the sixties, as a kid playing with HO flex track, laying and relaying the same strips until I had damaged the spike retaining nubs/ spikes so they no longer held the rail, and then just laying the tie bed, relying on the molded guides for the basic rail alignment, and then using basic Elmer's glue to hold it down. It kinda' worked OK but didn't have all of the elements to be reliable and I didn't have the resources, knowledge or financial, to do anything with it. Fast forward to the 3D option, FUD, still not there due to fragility, and then another step to the resin as I'm using and VOILA... it's now doable! The other thing that's at play here is the lack of a market to support the very cost effective standard processes available but depending on volume to amortize the large startup costs. Those of us interested in many of these products aren't around in sufficient numbers to make these things viable to a manufacturer and why we don't have them. My Nn3 interest is a textbook example of that. We all like to think our unfulfilled product desires are the missed fortune for a manufacturer to just come in and scoop up when in reality, such a pursuit would be closer to a business disaster than a business opportunity. Enter 3D printing and finally, it's actually viable. A method to manufacture something in the hundreds instead of many thousands and at a cost that is tolerable. It won't compete with true volume manufacturing but isn't so far out as to be absurd. That's where I'm seeing this fitting. Your link is to HO product, where the volume is. Code 55 N track is available from CV but no Z, no N or Z turnouts and no code 40 in N or Z. And I understand that from their position of high tooling costs to produce a product of very limited interest. The interest is huge to a few of us but... it's still just a few of us and they can't make that work. This method will attempt to fill that hole for us. It will not be cheaper than the higher volume method nor is that the point of it. What it should be is a way to have a lot of options previously unavailable and at a tolerable cost, not necessarily lower cost but very tolerable. I expect the cost will be more than manufactured flex track but not much more, at least not for simple track. That may not hold for turnouts but if produced as I envision, they will also be a much higher quality piece. And I really expect it to be even better than standard offerings in detail for the finicky among us. So yes, they are 3D resin printed. That affords great detail but is also a tougher material than the 3D FUD material that basically crumbles with a sideways glance. As far as a quoted price, I don't know yet. Tie strips could be made right now in less than a week and several hundred feet of Nn3 is already made and ready to use but all of the details for a successful installation haven't been thoroughly vetted and documented. I hadn't announced anything because I wasn't ready with all of the necessary details like this. As far as turnouts go, presently the venerable Fast Tracks hand laid switch system would work perfectly with these ties and it exists, tested and true, ready to go. The only real drawback is, unless you're in need of a bunch of them, they're a little pricey because of the tools and require some skills, even with the tools, but they're for real, not vapor. As far as my plans this way, I am literally reviewing turnout details and considering design ideas right now while building some Nn3, #4's for my own immediate needs. In doing this I am keeping an eye to the future, not just looking at the tie sets but also provisions for operating and ease of installation and servicing as a package. My design desires/ inclination is an operator directly below the turnout and it's that approach that's being considered. I'm also trying hard to come up with a cost effective enough method to furnish turnouts as RTR, excellent quality and reliable operating pieces. Filling a hole for those who need a few and don't have sufficient need or sufficient equipment or skills to justify the Fast Tracks methods/ tools. I will assuredly be using frogs fabricated from nickel silver rail so the whole switch will be all nickel silver, no cast and plated pieces. That's actually a little bit of a bug for me with current commercial offerings. When executed properly they work pretty well and look decent when new but don't always age well and when they have trouble I haven't found them to be very servicable or solder well. Plenty of discussion is out there on that topic. So, with all of that said, if anyone has an immediate need or interest send a PM and maybe we can do something for you.
Code 40 works still fine for my switching layout. Used micro engineering rails and fasttracks ties. All handlaid using a paper template. Verstuurd vanaf mijn ANE-LX1 met Tapatalk
Cool. Using that system there are also no spike heads unless you used them intentionally for aid in holding the rail position. And there is about the same tie clearance as code 55 with "spikes". Did you use Pliobond contact cement to hold the rail? That is what I am doing with this setup and with tie plates on each tie guiding the rail position for very accurate assembly position. It makes assembly easy and adds a nice detail for closeup photography.
I did glue wooden ties to the road bed and glued the track with soldered ties to the wooden ties using 2 parts epoxy glue from the diy shop. Verstuurd vanaf mijn ANE-LX1 met Tapatalk
That sounds excellent, like it should look and work nice! Has it been operationally good? Tell us the good, the bad, and the ugly if you care to.
Have a look at my web page there are some pictures. http://www.frank-zscale.com/ Some switches came out better than other. But that is the disadvantage of not using a fixture as from FastTrack. So far switches work for 10 years. Just had to resolder the moving point ends once and a wile. Better to us an n scale pcb tie as throwbar. The z sized is just not strong enough. .. And the way I build my #8 switches my sd40-2 wobbles a little when riding through. /Frank Verstuurd vanaf mijn ANE-LX1 met Tapatalk
I have to say I got a lot more than I expected when I asked the question. My interest was basically learning the experiences of those issues Jeff brought up. For those who haven't seen the NMRA letter, to summarize, the author points out that in the 1980s there was a TT scale flex track produced that used a dovetail in the heal of the rail that slid into the ties, avoiding the need for surface spikes/retainers to hold the rail. Thanks, Mark
If I am understanding what you are saying, that is not unlike the Peco n-scale Code 55 track that has a "double base/web" whereby the bottom base is embedded in the ties. I *love* the Peco N C55 for that reason...it is VERY robust track and operates like a dream. I wish Peco would do a more "North American" version in N...the Atlas N looks so nice but has its issues. And now that I'm in Z, I wish Peco would do a Z North American-style version. (hey, I can wish) So, they would essentially take a "Code 55-ish" rail, double web it so that only "Code 40" is above the ties and have a very durable but nicer looking product for Z-scale. I'm not knocking handlaying by the way, just pondering what could be for ready-built track in Z. Jury is still out on the Atlas track in Z I think so it's always interesting to pose the what-if scenarios. I suppose the double-web concept could be done via handlaying, but it would require some interesting new hardware I would guess.
Doug, I'm afraid I never spent much time in N scale so I can't say for sure. But there are images with the NMRA magazine Feb 2019 pg. 9 letter and with the MR Aug 1984 pg.23 letter which indicates we are talking about the same sort of design. And as you describe as your Peco wish was what I was thinking of. Having been a manufacturing engineer, I always look at tolerances and manufacturability of a design. This is where I have my concerns. When I look at the variations for standard Z track gauge: 13mil (S1.2), Code 40 rail: 2mils (RP-15.1 assuming 10% manufacturing variation), and wheel gauge +2 -7mil (S4.2), I run out of tolerance for rail placement on the ties. Narrow gauge N doesn't seem to have this problem as the wheel gauge tolerance in +- 2mils. This is why I asked actual experiences. Mark
The Atlas "Z" track and new turnouts all look quite nice to me. I wouldn't hesitate to use it in a Z layout and if Code 55 was satisfactory. The problem for me is the code 55 and also my immediate need being Nn3 so the tie spacing just doesn't work. That and the ability to do so is why I made the Nn3 code 40 tie strips and it's only logical to proceed to Z and then N and HOn30, all code 40. As far as the code 40 tie beds I'm making, they hold the rail inside to .260"/ 262" as planned. The NMRA tolerance is .257" (6.53mm) to .267" (6.88mm) for switches, slightly more for just track (.270" max). I chose the .260"/ .262" dimension based in part on FastTracks fixtures that seem to target .260" as well as Rokuhan road bed at .264" and Atlas flex track at .260"/ .261". I could change that target number if I found reason, maintaining the same tolerance, but that seemed very reasonable by spec as well as existing samples. The rail tolerance from MicroEngineering is +/-.001" and I find that to be true on the samples I've used and touted by FastTracks as the rail of choice for their fixtures. I will have a locomotive test board built in the next few weeks with a number of turnouts and the tie bed track for ongoing testing of my locos as well as the whole system, track and all. I'll post something when it's done. I'm not worried in the least about holding NMRA tolerance at zero extra effort. It's actually more generous than necessary.
