There’s little doubt that the outer circular track with its 14 team tracks fanning out is the most challenging part of the CNJ Bronx Terminal. In order to succeed I’d also have to adapt my approach for building the track work. I mentioned earlier that for the more complicated turnouts I produced a design beforehand using a drawing program on my computer. This was now an absolute necessity for the turnouts on the south-eastern side of the freight house as all of them are three-way turnouts.
Design Challenges
Three-way turnouts have three frogs. One of the design constraints was to avoid a geometry where the left and right frog would be juxtaposed such that there would be no guard rail for locos or cars running on the middle track. It later turned out that this could not always be completely avoided. The three-way turnout to tracks 7 and 8 is an example of this kind. In any case, a properly designed geometry on paper will avoid serious issues during operation later.
Another challenge is the available space for the turnouts, specifically for the first four 3-way turnouts for tracks 1 to 6 and 9 and 10. Those four turnouts and their eight throw bars need to be placed in short sequence (a bit more than 12″) over the first 90 degrees of the outer circular track.
Hinged Points
While building the turnouts I got better over time, and so was able to reduce the minimum distance between the two throw-bars from 30 to 17 millimeters. The only way I was able to achieve this short distance was by using hinged points for the short point rails. It took me some time to figure which design would give me the least amount of stress to the joints with the most robust design. In most cases it was sufficient to use one hinged point with a joiner soldered the closure rail while the other point rail stayed solid (I’m totally aware that I’ll be doomed for the rest of my life to re-soldering loose closure points to their throw-bar…).
Materials Used
Here are some details about the material I used for building the tracks:
- As can be seen from the photos, I’m using Micro Engineering Flex-Track whereever appropriate. I use it even on the short connections between turnouts and the stub tracks. This makes it easier to stay within the NMRA specifications, it saves me from soldering cross ties. And last but not least, it looks better.
- As ME Flex-Track is relatively stiff it is not advisable to use it on curves without previously bending it. In order to keep it at a certain radius, I always remove the ties before I use them. I then bend the two rails separately (using Fast Tracks Rail Roller product) and finally I put them back on their ties. That is more work but the only way to ensure that the track will keep its supposed shape.
- I use an abundance of PCB ties on turnouts and more than for instance the Fast Tracks templates suggest. The turnouts must be structurally robust as I do not glue them to the road bed.
- I’m using Pliobond for gluing the wooden ties to the rails which provides a fair connection on a completely finished turnout. I’m not entirely happy with the glue as the connection is often not strong enough. That’s why I try to avoid the wooden ties as much as I can.
How Prototypical is Code 55 Rail?
Looking at some of the completed more complex track work you may question the not so prototypical look. Take the three-way turnout to tracks 7 and 8 (center photo above) which lead to the quadruple diamond, for example. Close to this turnout is the second cross-over between the inner and out circular track.
The N scale version is obviously lot busier with its long guard and wing rails, compared to the prototype (photo). Using Code 40 rail and keeping guard and wing rails short would have brought my model closer to the prototype. By choosing Code 55 rail and by making compromises in the design I weighted practical feasibility and operability higher than the prototype’s fidelity.