the MRH Forum

O Scale PC Board ties vs wood ties thickness Track and electrical/DCC
Reply
Prolific poster 2,869 posts kleaverjr Prolific poster 2,869 posts
kleaverjr

I plan on using Fast Tracks jigs to build the O Scale turnouts needed for the local model railroad club's layout.  As I look at the products available, there are scale O Scale Wood ties of the proper "thickness" but the PC Board ties are significantly thinner.  Any thoughts on how to shim underneath the PC Board ties easily.  I have some ideas but am concerned they A) will not properly support the turnout while sitting on the roadbed orb) will be so grotesque in terms of appearance that they will not work either. 

Thanks.

Ken L.
Reply 0
Prof_Klyzlr Moderator 7,962 posts
Prof_Klyzlr

Dbl-thicknesses of PCB

Dear Ken,

Simply laying double PCB sleepers worked great on "Chicago Fork"...

http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page97a/index.html#chicago

Although admitedly, I was using hand-ripped balsawood for sleepers...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr
Reply 0
herronp Prolific poster 1,847 posts
herronp

The PC ties.......

...............are really there to hold the rails in gauge and they don't need to touch the roadbed.  Once they are painted and the area ballasted you will never know.  If you have an area w/o ballast just glue a piece of basswood to the bottom.  I believe 3/32 x 3/16 works perfectly.

Peter

 

 
Reply 0
Terry Roberts Regular poster 345 posts
Terry Roberts

In HO as well

PC ties are not the same thickness as standard HO ties.  The method above is what I use and it works quite well for me.

Terry
Reply 0
CM Auditor Regular poster 349 posts
CM Auditor

HO - Added Information

Terry et al,

I am using Fast Tracks switch ties in HO and they match perfectly the thickness of both switch and standard wood ties from Tru-scale Models (cmestel@troutcreekeng.com or http://www.troutcreekeng.com). So whether or not Tim and Cliff realize it they are complementing each others products.

CM Auditor

Tom VanWormer

Monument CO

Colorado City Yard Limits 1895
Reply 0
Reply