Nice diagram

Nice diagram, Art.

I have found that using the Fast Tracks point filing jigs makes this job into something really simple and fast. You don't need the reinforcing brass strip at all - the point filing jig supports the point and makes holding it for filing into a piece of cake.

I just chuck the rail into the point filing jig - make several swipes with a 10 inch mill file until the rail is flush with the face of the filing tool - remove the point and touch up slightly with a needle file - done! Takes 2-3 minutes at most per point.

filing points

Hi Joe -

I agree the brass strip is not needed but how do you avoid filing away the web?  If your rail point is on the outside edge of the railhead the end won't be sharp enough and if it is on the inside edge of the railhead then the web will be gone and the end will be unstable.

I agree that thousands of points have been filed without this problem but it hit me on the first two turnouts in n scale and several times on larger gauge turnouts and has been a topic on the Fast-tracks n-forum as well. 

The suggested cure on the Fasttracks forum was to cut off the unusable end and then file the inside edge of the railhead.  This probably does the job but it seems to be brute-force rather than clean fabrication.

Art

With practice ...

Art:

Once you pull the rail out of the jig, you push on the end of the new point to get to the part of the point with good web support. Then I just nip off the flimsy rail section and touch up the end of the point on with a needle file, and then file down the inside railhead with a few passes of the file.

Pretty easy, and you get a solid, dependable point that comes to a nice sharp "point".

With a bit more practice, you can learn to insert the rail just the right amount to not get the flimsy excess. Once you learn that trick, then a couple of quick passes on the inside railhead with a needle file and you're done!

But even if you do overshoot, it's not THAT much harder to just push on the end of the point with your fingernail until you get to rail with good web support. A quick snip with the flush cutters and then a bit more dressing with the file and you're in business.

Art I'm useing the point

Art

I'm useing the point form tool from Fast Tracks for code 70 & 55 rail and the points are so clean and sharp you could sew silk without tearing threads. Just follow the How to Videos on the Fast Tracks site and you can't do it wrong.

From the very first time I tried to make a set of points they have come out perfect every time.

They also make a point soldering tool that helps you to align the points perfect if you don't use their Switch building Jigs which simplifies making Crossings they don't make in Duel Gauge and for custom or hand laid without their Jigs. You can whip out a dozen Points in 30 min and everyone is exactally what you want.

Dan

Exactly as Joe points out

I spent quite a lot of time filing the points in N scale with code 55 rail to get it "just right."  Joe describes it well, but as he also says, it doesn't take much to touch it up anyway.  However, a good quality file makes the job much easier, but I'm sure you have one. 

green over green

Thanks for the comments.  Hands-on experience carries the day every time.  I see now that, although my geometry was correct, the slight over-hang is insignificant and is easily fixed.   Onward to N scale and Fast-tracks.

Art

Prototype points

Hi Art,

The diagram you posted is from an article writen for the P87SIG.  The discription of how to make points using this method is almost exactly what real railroads do to make real switch points! THe other thing is that making switch points using this method negates the need to file the base off of the stock rails. That being said, I have used the point form tool from Fastracks and it does work as described, however, don't let that deter you from trying the method you posted. I have done it and it works just as well!

Donnell

Proto 87

Hi Donnell - Thanks for the identification.

Full credit should be given to Andy Reichert for his pioneering effort in Proto 87 and other fine-scale innovations.  The Proto87 movement combined with Fast-tracks has already brought great changes in track modeling and construction.

Do we have a Model Railroad Hall of Fame?  With our historic innovators we should add Andy Reichert, Tim Warris, and Joe Fugate for advancing the hobby.

Artarms

Turnout blades

Having spent the majority of my working life in the engineering industry, my files were my main tools of trade.

I had files that I would use on specific metals such as brass, copper, steel etc.

I also use Fast Tracks jigs and have nothing but praise for this system and only wish that it was around in the years that I was constructing code 55 turnouts with nothing more that a few home made rail gauges.

The one thing that Fast Tracks say at the begining is that you should buy a new 10" mill file and use it exclusively with the filing jig.

The one thing that I don't think they tell you is that it is imperative that the file teeth be kept clear of any filings. It is a simple task to do but make sure that you use the correct tool and this is called a file card.

This is a small wooden spoon shaped item that is similar to a wire brush but the wire is very short.  It should be used by simply brushing across the file slowly to clean out the teeth.

A word of warning.  To prolong the life of the file, make sure that you brush towards the front of the file because if you brush the way that the file moves to cut the metal you will maybe break the top off the teeth.  Remember that wire brushes are made from spring wire and this is very hard material.

The easiest way of stopping this clogging of the teeth is to get a piece of chalk and give the file a single pass over it to fill the teeth of the file.  This then has the affect of allowing the brass filings to drop out with the vibrations which are formed when filing.

Clean the chalk out at the end of the building session though because chalk is excellent at absorbing the moisture from the atmosphere and will soon start rust forming.

more point stuff

I have built several turnouts in several scales but am not really proficient. One of my major problems is maintaining track gauge at the end of the points. I located a picture in Andy Reichert's P87 site http://www.proto87.com/old-style-turnouts.html that has helped me with this problem and It thought might be useful for others who are strugggling as I am.

This turnout is an old prototype - they may be different now. The rail does not curve continuously from the point end but has a sharp bend and a length of straight rail to allow the tapered point to fit smoothly against the stock rail. I remember hearing about a jog in the rail - even mentioned on one of FastTracks videos - but I have not seen it illustrated as clearly as this. This is something I have not been doing but will experiment with tomorrow. It looks like a simple way to take care of the gauge change.

added 1/30/10  Now that I am paying more attention - I notice on the Fast Tracks printed template for a #7 in N scale that they show the straight section with a jog in the rail - just like the prototype.  I should have known they would have this - it's just too small for me to see without a special focus.

Art

Tim talks about this

in one of his assembly videos and demonstrates what he does.  It takes a bit of practice, but isn't too difficult and fairly forgiving.

More point stuff...

Hello Art,

Turnouts are still built this way.

Donnell

The photographer professionally completely disagrees

I'm sorry to turn this thread back on itself, but it is important to realize that the reason I shot both those point photos and put them on the Proto:87 Stores WEB site, is to show that it is much more complicated than simply filing one angle on a piece of rail, to make a point look, work, or fit, properly, as a working model of the prototype.

The photo really should have been reproduced as it is published along with it's important caption kept underneath, so:

"
NOTE THE THREE WAY PLANING OF THE END OF THE POINTS

There is no  modeling "trick" to bending the rail. It's an historic piece of necessary railroad engineering going back for all of the 150 years of real railroad engineering practice.

And it is designed to both preserve the full strength of the web and make it parallel to the stock rail, so it rests on it properly, for the whole length of the inside planing. 

If you look more closely at the first diagrams you used, you'll notice that the (a) inside planing of the tip, from the bend to the end, is only half the distance of the (c) back planing from the place where the two rail head first touch.

That in turn means that you either bend the rail at the half way position before you file the back straight all the way along, or file the unbent rail back extremely accurately in two places, and at two different angles, then bend it back flat.

BUT!  You obviously can't fit pre-bent rail into simple one angle straight slot in a filing tool. Nor can a simple tool have a bent slot, or a double angle, back filing profile. And all those problems occur before you consider the undercut, which prevents you from having to file the unrealistic additional chunk of the stock rail base away. 

Now, that doesn't mean that experienced modelers like Joe, with a good craftsman's eye for the bending and extra angles, cannot hand work a plain point to get a similar close fitting result, at least at the rail head.  But it is the skill, and extra work, not the simplistic tool, makes that possible.

So the whole point (sorry, pun) is that these pictures represent what you WON'T automatically get if you only use a simple jig filing tool, or follow video instructions. In fact we at the Stores have gone to 21st Century CNC robot machining technology to get all the point angles to match up with the stock rail, after the point is bent, for every point we make. Only that way do we eliminate the skill and still achieve a consistent and nearly perfect result every time, and that actually looks like the real thing.

Wow, Andy

That's quite an explanation and a lot I didn't know.  But I'll admit, at this point I don't care, either.    I know I'm getting better than commercial turnouts with my fast tracks jigs and actually quite enjoy making them, and as you say, filing  as you suggest would take tremendous skill - something I don't have and don't think I could ever do in N scale.  I appreciate the modellers like yourself that have that attention to detail, but I'm after the essence, not the fine detail.  But thanks for teaching me something new.

Gateway Skills

I understand and really appreciate Andy's passion on detail fidelity, and to that standard simple filing jigs don't, in fact, stand up.

However, I'd suggest that these jigs introduce people (like me) to handlaying far more complex pieces of trackwork than we otherwise might.  And each one of us that has that exposure is one more person that may take that next step into modeling prototypically accurate track.  I've found myself perusing the proto87 stores with great interest lately.

It's like the proverbial "gateway drug"!

I know I'm getting better

I too appreciate what Andy and the Proto87 crowd brings to the hobby, but I'm also a pragmatic guy. Real railroads don't use wheelsets with pointy tips in plastic sideframes because they'd never make it out of the yard with the train if they did. Yet it works on the model.

Same story with turnout points. I can take my Fast Tracks point filing jig, chuck the rail in the jig, and with a couple minutes of simple filing, I have a nice tapered point for my scratchbuilt turnout. Nothing particularly complex or skilled involved except how to use a file properly. The jig does the rest.

Allen McClelland's "good enough" principle applies here, IMO. I know many in the Proto movement would consider that I've sold out to the enemy for even suggesting "good enough" as an option.

Don't get me wrong - I love what the Proto guys are doing for the hobby and their products can be very useful even for us "compromising" non-Proto modelers. I'd love to see more Proto coverage in MRH, for example, because I don't think it's getting the press it deserves.

However, I have yet to see even one real Proto layout beyond a few dozen square feet in scope - everything I've seen is a few modules at most. I suspect that's because the expense and effort of converting *everything* to Proto standards puts such a load on doing the hobby that you have to pick and chose - either do the hobby "in the small" with Proto standards, or do the hobby in the large with off-the-shelf standards.

I'm a "big tent" hobby guy. We're all fellow modelers and we all have our reasons why we like doing the hobby the way we do it. I'd like to see "regular modelers" open up more to the Proto movement since they have many useful things to teach the hobby, but I also think it would help the Proto movement to lighten up just a bit with their "we've got it right and you don't" attitude.

One point on "lifting photos" from other sites

One side point on "lifting photos" from other people's web sites.

It's considered common courtesy when you didn't take the photo and you "lift" it from another web site that you include a link back to the original web page where you got the photo and you credit the source.

Otherwise, you're "stealing" and if the site owner comes on here and insists you delete the photos, they're entirely within their rights. I know Andy was a bit upset that his photos got posted here with no credit or back links.

It's also common courtesy, especially if the image has a copyright notice or the site is a commercial one (as the Proto87 Stores site is) that you ask permission first.

...

Sorry to hear you have had illness in your family.  Best wishes in that regard.

Nice to see you back on the forum Andy.

Not upset, but no-one wants to be mistaken for someone else

I would first like to say I received a very nice sincere apology off-line for the unintentional photo use. Fully accepted and appreciated.  I have no problem leaving captioned copies and other useful stuff on Joe's site for educational purposes, if they help even just one modeler. Just to make this item more exciting and alert Joe to some Proto layouts he's not yet heard of, I've embedded video of some quite far fetched recent operating examples on a coupla large UK Proto:00 layouts.

I'm working as hard as I can in beween running the Stores, in building a moderate sized, but also very fast Proto:87 Demo layout to encourage the standard more here in the US. Here are some very recent shots of the 4 track main line foundation being laid at the end of the fast oval.

My concern in responding was more that the very intense efforts made by the Stores and SIG volunteers, to very economically provide similar extra capabilities to the hobby, which actually stand up to side by side comparison with prototype photos, were later somewhat arbitrarily re-attributed to a different set of folks who might prefer to provide something quite different. I can't imagine for example, BLI or Kato or Overland being particularly pleased, if photos of their latest  locos were widely published under a caption that suggested they were just like, (or even made by) Bachmann or Tyco

Anyone who was really looking for what we provide, could become quite confused about who to contact. And thus our ability to sell items to fund continuing to provide those things, lessened.

I fully understand the "good enough" standard when it seems to help our desire to just get on with runnning and operations of our model trains, rather than spend a longer time seeking a greater realism, based on accuracy, that not everyone wants. I'm just as pragmatic about that as anyone here. But if you actually look, you may be very pleasantly (or if too late, perhaps not ) surprised to find that in quite a few instances, "good enough" can be something that you both pay more for and end up getting less from, than say "more realistic".  For example, the popular, but very plain, PCB tie, is actually much more expensive one-to-one than a real wood tie, with separate, accurate looking scale metal tieplates and "freebie" scale spike heads. Similarly, the more protypical version of the "points" talked about originally in the discussion above, completely avoids the "damaged" appearance, the additional effort and the optional expensive extra tool for "filing" the stock rails just to accomodate the simplified filed points. And of course you can save a whole bunch of money not paying for both a LH and otherwise identical mirror image RH turnout jig, if you get one with a top that was thoughtfully designed to just be flipped over, and even be later upgraded to other sizes for far less. And a single universal tie cutting tool that cuts ALL the tie sizes for any turnout for the one price, and is even "free" as part of the overall fixture.

We believe in modeling within the constraints of a limited budget, just as much as anyone else. The great news is that the extra effort and time spent in our digging into ways to make parts more accurate, frequently turns up ways to make them less expensive too. So we just like to go the extra mile to provide the best possible value in what we deliver, as well as the best possible appearance.

Andy

PS My prolonged absence from posting here is due to unfortunate family illness, not lack of interest.

Thanks for the clarification, Andy

Thanks for the clarification, Andy - I have no doubt the Proto modelers can teach the rest of the hobby a thing or two, and I'd like to see more from the Proto viewpoint in MRH.

I also know I've found several goodies on the Proto 87 Stores site that are useful even for us non-fine standards modelers. For those who may not know, the Proto movement in each scale contends that exact scale standards for wheels and track actually makes for better looking models (some would say *siginificantly better looking*) and the models track every bit as reliably as the "standard" off-the-shelf stuff (if not better).

Jigs

Is there another jig that you mean besides the Fast Tracks Jigs? If not, you are aware that each of the FT's have both lefts and rights on them I presume?

I fall into the catagory that there has to be some "good enough" in my hobby; time, space, and resources conspire to dictate that reality.

I found your discussion on the points informative, and while I fully understand the necessity in real life to do things a certain way, we don't with our smaller scales have to worry about a 4 oz car crushing the web rail as a real freight car would.  Nor do we have to worry about drainage or freeze induced problems, snow removal, sewage and water lines. While all of those things can be modeled, and when they are we go "wow!", I have to fall back on my hobby equation of time, space, and resources for my own purposes, and choose to exclude some things.

I find the Proto87 aspect very interesting, and worth exploring. Full bore - maybe not, but I'm interested in trying a few things

It should be noted though, that any current confidence I have in that are comes directly from using the Jig system to assemble reliable, good looking trackwork, and I have a hard time putting a price on that educational experience.

Now before I found Fast

Now before I found Fast Tracks Jigs I had a lot of trouble with my turnouts and building proper working switch points that would lay properly against the main rails to avoid derailments. The second reason I use Fast Tracks Fixtures and Jigs is the ease of use and the ability to repeatably reproduce Turnouts of high quality and perfect function every time.

As far as Proto 87 it would be nice if they came up with a switch point kit that would allow the less experienced modeler to replace the switch points with the more prototypical switch points while assembling Fast Tracks turnouts and included the(all scales) pre gauged throw bars for all the the main rails sizes 55, 70, 83, & 100. Also Duel Gauge (3rd rail) individual rails and throw bar kits that would allow for the duel gauge modeler to build to the Proto 87 standards.

I like Proto 87's approach to Model Railroading as it puts Model railroading up a few more notches above the TOY TRAIN look of the earlier years. The only thing is, like everything else in our hobby not everybody is going to take the extra effort in the super detailing of their Pikes and I would think that only 10-20% of model railroaders will even consider that much detail. For those of you that do I say bravo to your effort in improving the model railroading world and taking that extra step to improve our hobby and I am watching the Proto 87 people very closely to see what else they can contribute to our hobby.

Dan

I was looking into Fast Tracks jigs for two reasons.

The first reason had to do with the cost of commercial turnouts.  The second had to do with the reliability of the commercial turnouts.  I found that both Atlas Custom Line and Shinohara had some short comings, while Peco was way too expensive for me to use exclusively. 

Unfortunately, I won't need enough turnouts for a layout to justify the up front cost of all of the jigs needed to build a complete turnout.  I was thinking of using Joe's method of using the Central Valley tie strip for a jig and only the Fast Tracks filing jig for the points and Proto 87 Store's frog castings in standard nmra size rather than trying to convert my railroad entirely to Proto 87 wheel standards.  I used Andy's link a few posts ago to check out what Protoy 87 Store's have to offer and am now seriously considering ordering their turnout kits in NMRA standard.  It looks like it would be as easy and as good as Fast Tracks at a much more reasonable cost.  If I had already invested in the Fast Track Jigs, or had already built my turnouts with Joe's method, I would not change, but now I've got another choice to consider.  Decisions, decisions!

Turnout points

  Hello all.

 First off I have to thank everyone involved in this site. I consider this a GREAT resource for us modelers. Second I would like to thank Andy and Tim for the great products they produce. They each have a following that should not be discounted.

  I have been for the most part an arm chair HO modeler for about 30 years. Now (Past 7 years) I have gotten around to building modules for shows. While the club uses an archaic standard for track it has its points and reliability in being portable. With my family obligations almost finished it is time for a home layout. (finally have a room all to myself) I considered going the commercial route but looking at my finances and the $30+ dollars for a turnout is way too much for me. Hand-laying track is an alternative I had considered. I bought a couple of CVT switch kits to try my hand at making turnouts. The #5 left and right code 70 rail kits I figured would be harder to make and a real test to see if my long wheel base steam engines can negotiate. They turned out (no pun intended) better than I could have imagined. They were not fast to make nor did they work flawlessly from the start but they did work great after a few tweaks. The point fastening system needs improvement but other than that I have a great looking and reliable code 70 turnout that cost me $10. After using code 100 Atlas flex track with Peco turnouts on my 7 modules I and others can see that track should be a model also. That is why I want the code 83 main line and code 70 sidings and yards. But I don't need it to cost a fortune. I am perfectly happy to build my own trackwork.

        Pete