Like everything

it depends.  How much time one has, how much money, how much patience, experience, skill? I use whatever works best for me in a given situation. I've always hand laid my O and S turnouts due to high cost and low availability of commercial products. For HO I've done both depending on the specific situation. For N scale I found I prefer Atlas code 55 turnouts over hand laid, they are reasonably priced and have #7 and #10 versions which were what I needed for my N scale layout. For my TT scale layout I'm going all hand laid due to poor selection of commercial turnouts.  The main thing I consider about handlaid/commercial geometry is the possibility of enhancing the track plan operations by using curved turnouts which are easier to incorporate in a plan if one can build their own to the custom geometry required for a specific layout. ....DaveB

I'm not really clear on the

I'm not really clear on the question, but hand-crafted turnouts and flex track permit me to fix standard errors in track-laying that I undertake in compliance with a plan.  I don't really use curve templates, but I do map them out initially using a trammel.  At some point, near the place where I close my typical folded loop, I find that I have to start fiddling with curves.  If there's also a turnout there, and it happened two years ago on this current layout I'm using, I have to create a turnout that fits, and that's where I want, and need, 'hand laying'.

To me, hand-laying trackage is a craftsman's undertaking, something done for the experience, for the skill-development and learning, and in some cases for the therapeutic value it might offer the layer.  I don't happen to share the opinion that it looks better than flex track, although I can't also claim to have seen examples of the very best hand-laid track out there.  What I have seen in photos has the same curves as flex, but fewer spikeheads showing.  In any event, it's how people like to invest their time that is also part of the purpose.  For me, building a layout isn't so much fun; it's a means to an end.

Frog angle vs minimum radius

You've wandered back into the frog angle thicket. So many modelers want to boil turnout geometry down to a single number (frog angle). In commercial turnouts, frog angle is a vague proxy for the minimum radius through the turnout, which is what restricts what equipment can reliably navigate the turnout. The frog angle itself doesn't matter, as long as you can curve to it safely.

In hand laying, you can vary all the dimension variables within the constraints of geometry imposed by track gauge, increasing and decreasing or entirely eliminating the short straight sections that commercial turnout vendors design into their turnouts and thus increasing or decreasing the minimum radius and increasing or decreasing the length of the points.

If your plan uses a #6 turnout template for a commercial turnout that has embedded straight sections, when you hand-lay you can adjust those straight sections if you need to, while maintaining turnout frog number and not exceeding minimum closure radius.

Certainly some people just wing it and don't really know what radius they've hand-laid, but someone more careful could edit up a custom template to fit a given place, print it and hand lay on top of it. Thus enforcing the desired minimum radius while shortening the turnout to fit a given situation.

Anyway, layouts that use, for example in HO, #6 commercial turnouts with 32" minimum radius are not using that minimum radius in their turnouts, but something quite a bit larger. So there is room to cheat without violating reliability minimums for radius.

Geometry, which geometry ? I don't use geometry

It's a great question which resume in two parts, using existing fixed geometry of track  or not use any fixed geometry; really there are no absolute necessity to follow a fixed geometry.

Size of the layout didn't matter to my eyes about fixed geometry or a form of "open geometry".

Myself I use Fastrack N scale code 55 turnouts, FT use the same geometry as Peco code 55,  I use #6 and #8 turnouts only, but some build in place are sure #10 or over #12 frog, in fact I don't care about frog number, I open the frog angle to meet my needs.

So you can  tell me I use a fixed geometry when I lay track because of RTR FT turnouts

The answer is not; I use fixed geometry in an open geometry way….

In fact I draw a track plan with LDS spot, meaning the design of a siding the design of an access to an industry or a switching area like a vilage, an interchange of a group of different industry.

Place where a turnouts must fit is clearly measured on this plan I use a X and Y axe from the front to precisely know where to fit the turnouts on the roadbed; this is precisely draw on a piece of paper so I know the arrangement of track and  how to build my LSD

But when time comes to drawn the plan to the roadbed, I didn't use the straight line of the plan; I just keep in mind the arrangement of the track, I use a yardstick to design the track on the roadbed.

This give an extremely flowing track between turnouts and my ME flextrack; the build up track is far from the paper LSD plan of track; the basic design remain the same, but the layed track is far from the plan.

I put my FT turnouts where necessary and lay the track in the flowing arrangement designed by the yardstick line;  I don't follow the geometry imposed by the frog angle but I lay a smooth open track.

I just take care to not go under my minimum radius of 17"; more is ok, I don't care about the radius; fixed radius are just used on return loop where a constant radius is necessary.

I do the same when it comes to lay main line; again the yardstick comes to the rescue and I design the main following my feeling at the moment; my main is just a connector between two different LSD

At the end I have a very smooth flowing track design, which follow a basic plan but which is not the reflect of the plan and which not follow really the fixed geometry of FT turnouts I use

If two tracks need a very special arrangement, I build the necessary turnouts or crossing in place and I don't care about the frog number, I just build a turnout or a crossing to fit

Here is an perfect example how to do on the AO railroad with the yardstick method,

. https://www.aorailroad.com/glueing-rr-ties

And a picture of some track I lay with the yardstick in N scale,

how fixed is fixed?

it seems to me that fixed geometry may be more about what brand of turnouts being used, than geometry

when i started hand laying turnouts i tried to figure out what dimensions they should be based on frog #.    I couldn't make sense of the NMRA dimensions and read that Andy Sperandeo felt some NMRA dimensions turnout dimensions were shorter than they should be.   I found a site that provided prototype info which I was able to confirm geometrically.

but i went a bit further and was able to determine turnout dimensions with varying lead lengths for the same frog #.  In the image below, I show the two non-diverging rails of a turnout and the one diverging points rail in blue and red.  The constant radius portion is blue and a straight section in red.   The curve radius is indicated on the left and the lead length from points to frog in the middle.   the frog # indicated on the right.

reducing the curve radius shortens the lead length and overall length of the turnout.   This explains why commercial turnouts with the same frog # aren't necessarily interchangeable (even accounting for the straight sections at the ends

the prototype railroad site confirms that the curved rail should be a constant radius and and therefore the frog # should dictate the radius and lead length.

for those who believe the NMRA dimensions are the gold standard, except for the #4, they all appear to have shorter lead lengths than that dictated by the frog # (presumably for pragmatic reasons)

Prototype Switch

A prototype switch isn't a constant radius, it is tangent through the points and frog.

.

yes.   a constant radius can be tangent at both points and frog  See Track - Frogs and Switches 

Hinged closure rail?

Marc, is that a hinge I see on your closure rail? The colour of the rail seems to change at that point. If it is a hinge, how is it constructed?

I believe that’s a Peco code

I believe that’s a Peco code 55 double crossover. Looks like it was on the bench to get feeders.

@ JeffRa @barr_ceo

This is the last Peco code 55 crossover  I used before build one with FT jigs.

Yes it was an hinged point, was, because I soldered all the Peco Points underneath the crossover to have a full electrical continuity.

They were soldered in a middle position between the two stockrails.

The Peco points are sufficiently soft to work this way like full point of the FT turnouts; my Hankscraft display motor I use,  move them easily without any trouble.

The frog were also cut to make them dead frog and they are powered by micro switch with the motors.

Jumpers were also soldered between stock rail and switch point rails.

This way the crossover as no dead electrical point and is full DCC friendly.

@gregc

You have right prototypical turnouts use a tangent through the point and frog and yes to be accurate, this tangent need to be longer as the specified norms by NMRA

Scale and compromise dictate the geometry used and the non conforms measurement of model turnouts.

I have observed this by using the yardstick method, since the yardstick is always a tangent of the first radius when I draw a converging route.

The handlaid turnout build in place following these  lines  have longer point rails in any case.

Course they are not calculated exactly because the yardstick is jut put in place by eyes, but the difference is really sgnificant when regarding at a RTR turnout of the "same size".

Handlaid turnouts

There are generally two opposing thoughts on how to track plan and lay turnouts.

Track is a model, too.  And therefore we should emulate the prototype with a straight segment through the frog, along with other prototypical details.  I suspect because commercial model turnouts generally follow this practice, a good percentage follow this school of thought.  Track planning software, aids, and instructions also follow the practice of straight frogs.

The opposing school of thought prefers "flowing" turnouts and track, which better matches the prototype when both are viewed from a distance.  Close-up prototypical accuracy is very difficult to achieve without lots of space, and finer track and wheel standards than are the norm.  In the flowing track, curves are continued through the turnout as desired, and curved frogs are quite normal.  Because the curves and turnouts tend to fit the situation, there is no "standard" that can be built in multiple copies from a template, therefore there is no commercial support for this type of turnout. 

Smaller spaces and fewer turnouts work well with flowing track approach.  OTOH, building a larger layout favors the time savings that templates and work aids can give.  Since I'm a small space/small layout kind of guy, I prefer flowing trackwork.

just my thoughts

Fred W

Templot

A British dude created a curved turnout program that draws templates for any type of straight or curved geometry.

The program is difficult to learn but is amazing. Below is the sketchpad version that allows building etc to be added. the track plan goes to the detail level of ties and can print detailed templates for each turnout. This sketch is an early version that has since gone through several revisions to straighten out yard tracks and improve staging ( but you can see how easy making everything curved is )