[rdamurphy]

I read a lament in one of the Model Railroad mags years ago about how people will meticulously detail their locomotives, weather and modify their rolling stock, build breathtaking scenery, clutter their scenes, and super-detail their buildings, only to plop down Snap-Track and run trains on it!

Track is a model, too, isn't it? Shouldn't it be as scale and detailed as our trains?

I bought a couple of #10 turnouts on eBay, with busted and decayed ties, but I got them cheep. So, here's the rebuilding of them into models for my layout:

First, I acquired an oak pallet to contribute the lumber for the ties:

Next, broke out the table saw, and started my own mill operation. Fortunately, railroad ties need little perfection to them...

Next, a little brown paint...

The turnout in it's original condition. The ties crumbling, missing, and broken, G gauge:

Headblocks first. Those are Micro-Engineering snap gauges. The original turnouts were slightly out of gauge in certain places.

And, finally, about a foot of ties in place. Only three more feet to go. This darn thing is 4 feet long!

Not an exact model, but I'm trying to match my AMS #6 turnouts as closely as possible. I'm planning on some scratchbuilt turnouts also, at least one three=way and a couple of stub-switches.

Thanks, Robert!

 

[Florida Trains]

This is a brilliant idea. What are you using to mount the track to the new ties?

 

[rdamurphy]

Micro-engineering spikes with ME tie plates.

Robert

 

[rdamurphy]

Progress on the first #10 turnout rebuilding - most of the ties in place. Greg, An AMS #6 switch is next to it for comparison.

Robert

 

[TrotFox]

This is a familiar kind of project.... All but two of my switches have been rebuilt using the exact same process, just without the plates and I pre-fit the ties to second-hand pressure treated lumber.

Trot, the spiky, fox...

 

[Greg Elmassian]

TrotFox !!!! Great to see you here, have not seen a post since 2015!

Greg - 672

 

[barnmichael]

I see you are using Micro-Engineering snap gauges. Those are for code 250 track. I didn't notice if you mentioned what code rail you are using. Do those gauges also work on code 332 rail?

 

[TrotFox]

TrotFox !!!! Great to see you here, have not seen a post since 2015!

Greg - 672

Hey dude! Life has been lifey. I'm still rattling around but don't hit forums nearly as much as I used to before Facebook appeared. I also never seem to finish anything so it's not like you guys have been missing much.

Trot, the still-alive, fox...........

 

[Royce]

Hey dude! Life has been lifey. I'm still rattling around but don't hit forums nearly as much as I used to before Facebook appeared. I also never seem to finish anything so it's not like you guys have been missing much.

Trot, the still-alive, fox...........

Are you the "trotfox" that posted a 3d model of a coupler on thingiverse?

royce

 

[du-bousquetaire]

Using scale track was a big issue in scale model railroading in the sixties in HO scale. I cannot understand why with most garden railroad operators this important feature has been dropped from their attention and practice in so few years. True one tends to want a rigid rail section when one uses floating track on ballast (watch out for gophers and other pests). But it is quite easy to set this scale track on a rigid base either wood or concrete (that latter on has the advantage that you can actually step on it if need so). In which case fine rail becomes very practical. I have noticed that there are many of the finer narrow gauge layouts which do this. But few standard gauge fans do it. I model SNCF and PRR Now PRR did use 152 Lbs /pound rail which scales out to code 250, but SNCF and many PRR lines used lighter rail so I went for code 215 to code 195 (French made). As you said Robert why bitch about engine or underbody detail and run trains on rails about 20 scale inches high?
Good suggestion, du -bousquetaire