Fast Tracks TT

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby ConducTTor » Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:43 am

Thanks a lot for the details Bill. All of this information will be very useful when I start building my permanent layout 2nd half of this year.
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8293
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby Bill Dixon » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:02 am

Built some more turnouts today.
20140210 Turnouts.jpg

The single at the top took 45 minutes to make.

The two on the bottom took longer. They are destined to become a crossover.
Now taking the time to make sure the PC ties are tight to one edge of their slots in the assembly jig rather than sitting any old way. All three turnouts still need their rail gaps cut.

Still thinking about the wooden tie jig.
Regards
Bill Dixon
TT-Tracks
North Vancouver, BC
Bill Dixon
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: North Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby ConducTTor » Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:48 pm

:clap:

They look really good Bill. I'm starting to think that this is the route I'll go with all my switches instead of buying ready off the shelf versions.....save a ton of $$$ and these look much better.
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8293
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby milwrd1 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:15 pm

Bill D

Just a general question with the code 55 rail. Did you have any trouble bending it, or more specifically overbending it? :?: The rail cross section is very small, and the last time I used some, on a test section I built several years ago, I noticed a tendency to overbend the rail. I did not experience this problem with the code 70 rail I was using. The code 55 is small, and I would guess the same "problem" exists with using code 40 rail, even though I don't have any experience with the code 40 rail.
milwrd1
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:07 am
Location: Vicksburg, MS USA

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby ctxmf74 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:37 am

"I noticed a tendency to overbend the rail. I did not experience this problem with the code 70 rail I was using. The code 55 is small, and I would guess the same "problem" exists with using code 40 rail"

Code 55 rail is small but N scalers routinely use it. After working with it a bit over-bending is not a problem, I've built an N layout with code 55 rail and hand layed turnouts with no problems. The main thing to consider is that larger TT gauge flanges will hit the code 55 rail joiners so if you want to use code 55 on PC board ties you'll need to make joints with an alternate method such as brass pins soldered on the outsides of the rail. For my new layout I've decided that code 70 is a better compromise of utility over appearance.....DaveB
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby Bill Dixon » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:17 am

I have noticed a tendency for the code 55 rail to twist.
It is necessary to make sure the rail is straight and untwisted before using it.

I had though about the rail joiner issue but as I have not got that far in the track laying process I have not had to deal with it yet.
I thought of cutting down the inside of the rail joiner or using a PC tie for the joint.
This might be a good place to use the Gapmasters. I have a couple on order to try out.
Regards
Bill Dixon
TT-Tracks
North Vancouver, BC
Bill Dixon
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: North Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby ConducTTor » Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:55 am

Bill Dixon wrote:This might be a good place to use the Gapmasters.


Seems like the best solution. I've never liked how the rail joiners look anyway.
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8293
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby ctxmf74 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:34 pm

" thought of cutting down the inside of the rail joiner or using a PC tie for the joint.
This might be a good place to use the Gapmasters. I have a couple on order to try out."

You could solder up the joint with rail joiner then use a dremel to carefully grind off the inside of the rail joiner for flange clearance, or for a simpler solution you can solder a piece of brass wire along the outside of the rail spanning the joint, or you can glue down two pc board ties then solder the rails to them. Gapmasters are a more expensive way of using PC board ties and overkill for common rail joints. Gapmaster are great for section or module joints where more strength is needed, guys have been making their own for many years.....DaveB
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby ctxmf74 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:35 pm

"I've never liked how the rail joiners look anyway."

They look a lot better if you cut them in half with a jeweler's saw and just use half a joiner on each rail joint....DaveB
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Fast Tracks TT

Postby milwrd1 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:28 pm

ctxmf74 wrote:"I noticed a tendency to overbend the rail. I did not experience this problem with the code 70 rail I was using. The code 55 is small, and I would guess the same "problem" exists with using code 40 rail"

Code 55 rail is small but N scalers routinely use it. After working with it a bit over-bending is not a problem, I've built an N layout with code 55 rail and hand layed turnouts with no problems. The main thing to consider is that larger TT gauge flanges will hit the code 55 rail joiners so if you want to use code 55 on PC board ties you'll need to make joints with an alternate method such as brass pins soldered on the outsides of the rail. For my new layout I've decided that code 70 is a better compromise of utility over appearance.....DaveB


Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree that Code 70 is a better compromise, based on appearance, operational concerns and easier, in my opinion, installation.
milwrd1
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:07 am
Location: Vicksburg, MS USA

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests