I'm curious if anyone has any close-up / macro shots of some handlaid code 40 rail and / or Fast Tracks turnouts next to MTL flex track. I'd really like to see some A/B shots. Thanks John Ztrains.com
All of this is handlaid C40. http://picasaweb.google.com/ErieChris333/ZScale The magnifying glass in the upper right will blow them up. If you want I can take a photo of it next to some MT flex.
http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=89831&highlight=fast+tracks Here is a tread that shows code 55 fast tracks's jig. I have to make more of theese soon :tb-rolleyes:
Chris, WOW!!! I just looked through your photo album - you are truly one of the guys that inspires me! I thought your last Z layout design was a winner - this one is even better!! I really like what you did to expand the N Scale Architect / NSM Williamstown Coal Kit and the paint job / colors you painted it!! I'd love to see the overall layout plan. John
I'd really like to see that... the MTL flex next to handlaid code 40. The shots I saw in your web album are pretty impressive indeed... I'm curious... has working with the code 40 rail made you a complete convert, are you all code 40 now? Also I've been curious about the build time on the turnouts, obviously there's a learning curve involved when using the FT jigs, what would you say is an average build time per turnout for you now? Good shots all! Robert I was interested to see you mix codes 40 / 55. Really the same question, are you going all handlaid as well? John Ztrains.com
Code 40 looks great in photographic shots, especially macros, except for the lack of missing rail spikes. With ballast and "1 foot" overview shots, it still looks noticeably better than MTL or especially obvious against Marklin/Peco. But even MTL flex is noticeably better than Marklin/Peco in any shot. Even though both are roughly .055" rail, the significantly narrower rail head, lower profile to the ties and closer tie spacing make for night and day prototypical shots. The one drawback of handlaid is durability. For a home layout, its relatively safe but for a travelling road show, the chance of handling the rail is significant which can lead to a lot of gauge problems. Temperature is critical too. For a home layout, no problem but for portable modules, between the temperature in the car to that one moment you get in the sun, you are toast as the rails easily get way out of gauge from thermal expansion.
I saw photos somewhere, perhaps the 3mm Assoc. (Mark Fielder?) that showed where someone had pulled the code 55 (or 60 or 62) rail out of either PECO or MTL flex track and replced it with code 40 rail in the manufactured plastic tie strips. Haven't tried it yet myself. Anyone here tried this? Might be a more durable option for modules. Randy
Hey guys Thanks! The bridge is modeled after the one on the Erie mainline at Mill Rift, PA: http://www.gsmrrclub.org/trips/SU99061106_5-s.jpg http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=158011&nseq=5 The girders were laser cut by Robert, so you can send any bribes his way ; ) When I first got into Z scale I was going to use MT C55 flex and Wright turnouts. A quick search reviled that MT flex only comes in 1' lengths (not the normal 3') I didn't want flex that was basically sectional and a million rail joiners. Robert to the rescue...! I found his page on hand laying track and figured I had found a way. If I'm going to hand lay track anyways, it might as well be C40 right? C40 is normal rail in N scale so it is still way over sized for Z, but I think it looks OK. As for being a convert, well in my mind I didn't have a choice. True about the spike heads, but I bet those on MT flex are way over sized compared to real track. Not a bash to MT track, remember I was planning to use it if it was longer. Each person will have to decide what they want and I agree about not using hand laid on a portable layout. I build this hand laid track on at least 1/2" thick plywood now so it is solid. My layout is 8'x 19" and splits apart in the middle into two 4'x19" sections. I can make a C40 turnout with the FT jig in about an hour or less now. (first one took longer) I build each to fit the layout leaving the rail extending to random lengths so I don't end up with 6 joiners at the turnout. I like the C40 track, guess now there is no way I could go back.
Oops forgot I uploaded 2 more pics: http://picasaweb.google.com/ErieChris333/ZScale/photo#5127957636161819122 http://picasaweb.google.com/ErieChris333/ZScale/photo#5127957670521557506 The C40 is painted and the MT flex is not, but you get the idea. Also I use Atlas C55 joiners.
Chris, the first pix (...122) shows it all. Again, outside of the missing rail spikes, another think that makes it look a bit better is your ties are thicker than the 0.040" that MTL uses. This increases the ratio of smaller rail to ties and thus, makes the rail look even smaller. Are they made from 0.062" ply ? '
I can't argue if you want spikes ; ) The hand laid track has 1/32" thick ties or .03125" this is the same as the PC ties. So it is thinner than MT track. The MT flex ties get thin at the ends so you can slide on a joiner. Neither matter after you ballast. I'm just posting comparison pics to help. I can't choose for anyone else. I like my track. I've seen MT roadbed track that looks good. You can improve the look of any track. I like to take very close up photos so that is a point for me. I don't just need it to look good at a glance. Hmmmm about spikes, and again don't let me change your mind. The MT flex track spikes are ~ .017" wide and ~ .010" tall, that is 3.74" wide and 2.2" tall in real life. I'd guess that is about 3x larger than a real spike. So in a way not having spikes is better than having triple-X sized spikes. Just something to think about. Plus my handlaid "flex" is a perfect match for my turnouts so the look flows. If I had MT flex with spikes and Wright turnouts without spikes, that may not look right.
Nice Track! Chris, Your stuff looks Spectacular as always!!!! Wow!!! Question, has anyone tried to build a jig to solder tiny nickelsilver plates to the sides of the rail to join two rails together?? Simulate rail plates??????? Would it be strong enough on curves!!!! Those darn unsightly rail joiners are so huge and ugly!!!! Just a question! Great work Chris!!! Hobo Tim
I mentioned above I use Atlas C55 joiners. Here is a pic: http://picasaweb.google.com/ErieChris333/ZScale/photo#5108289973798311106 They are a lot lower profile than MT or ME joiners. I hear what your saying I hated the joiners on my last layout. I have join bars in N scale from here: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/8552/AlkemScaleModelsImages/NLinesideDetailsRaw.jpg But I just glued them on and not in place of joiners. If you zoom on on these you might find a few: http://picasaweb.google.com/ErieChris333/Models/photo#5076371602917729938 http://picasaweb.google.com/ErieChris333/Models/photo#5076403591834150578 http://picasaweb.google.com/ErieChris333/Models/photo#5076403815172450002
I can live without the spikes too as the 40 profile, especially after ballast, sorta washes it all out anyway. On a siding with grass, even better !!! The lower profile really brings out the scale. ANYthing is better than Marklin/Peco.
I've always said that Chris has the best trackwork out there. Not just the track, but the ballast that goes with it as well. He seems to get the right blend to give it a realitc look. I can't wait to see your layout completed with pictures myself.
Hi Randy 3mm Assoc. uses very small flanges because it's finescale standard. If You put a code 40 rail in a regular bed, the flanges will toch the plastic hooks.
