Attention 00-SF track builders

[martin_wynne]

I can't see any reason for my making frogs/crossings with a slightly narrowed 1.00 mm flangeway. They aren't HO or 00 compatible and I'd have to publish a coupla pages of explanation of the restrictions they'd impose on the buyers.

 

Hi Andy,

 

But they don't impose any restrictions on buyers who actually want 1.0mm flangeways. It's not true that they are not compatible with anything -- they would be compatible with EM, 00-DOGA-Fine, and 00-SF.

 

Ready-made assembled 1.0mm bullhead crossings from C&L are GBP 18.00 each -- see: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_370_371_372

 

Your etched vees are $4.95 = GBP 3.50 approx. Even allowing for shipping and VAT they would be one third of the price of C&L in the UK.

 

You would sell lots of them.

 

I'm not suggesting changing your existing range. Offer 1.0mm flangeways as an option. But have a good look at UK prototype pics -- we don't want any infill behind the point and splice rails for bullhead crossings.

 

Martin.

[polybear]

Hi Tim,

 

The vero pins are a push fit from above, and can therefore be drilled and inserted after the copper-clad "timbers" have been attached to the template. Quick and simple, but would not be strong enough just pushed into plywood timbers. Soldering them in place to copper-clad solves that, and the surplus pin can be trimmed from the underside after lifting the finished track from the work board.

 

The result is very strong because the soldered pins and rails cannot rotate in the copper-clad.

 

 

Hi Martin/all,

I was intrigued by the method of using single-sided Veropins with Copper Clad trackwork.  I like the idea of the strength and adjustability that copperclad track construction offers, but less keen that there is no gap between the underside of the rail and the top of the sleeper; also the installation of chairs is very fiddly and the chairs are too high resulting in the wheel flange striking the chairs.

 

I was lucky enough to find a few veropins tucked away , so I though I'd give it a go:

(Look away now Martin - two of the Pins are decidedly on the p**s  .  First Lesson - getting the Pins right on the rail & sleeper centrelines really helps later on when fitting the chairs (I was using a Templot template with rail centres marked).  I drilled the hole at 1mm, but next time I'll pilot drill the hole much smaller [0.5mm, maybe smaller?] which should help)

 

 

Rail soldered to the pins - the gap between rail and sleeper is obvious :

 

 

A view from above - shows that some of the pins are less than centre; it does help that the pin heads are only 1.6mm diameter - this compares with 2.08mm for copper rivets and 2.5mm for brass rivets, as used for ply & rivet construction.  If I adopt this method for "the great project" I think I'd be inclined to mill some form of hardened steel sleeper drilling jig to ensure that sleepers are accurately drilled on rail centre lines, though such a jig won't be much use on turnouts or gauge-widened curves   :

 

 

This is why I like 3-point Gauges for plain track construction - they let you do things like this:

 

 

The pins do of course make lifting the track panel off the board a bit of a fiddle - the row in front was trimmed after lifting - they cut easily using end cutters (not your best pair!).  I guess one option may be to leave the panel pinned to the board; however this would (I guess) increase noise and also possibly cause issues with expansion/contraction maybe??

 

 

Rows of holes in the baseboard:

 

 

Chairs being fitted; I originally started using UHU but found it very stringy, so I switched to Pipebond instead - which so far seems to be working (it's only a test panel).  Any other suggestions for suitable adhesive?:

 

 

Would I use it as a method of building trackwork?  In my book it's a very good contender, and especially so if you want soldered trackwork with chairs fitted.  Fitting the chairs is still mind-numbingly boring though 

 

Many thanks for bringing this method to our attention Martin  (and I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding cutting off the pins - or not).

 

One question - do any of you have any secret methods/jigs etc. for holding rail upright when you start soldering to sleepers?  It's not so bad on straight track work as a wooden batten works well, but on curved track ??

 

Thanks.

 

polybear

[martin_wynne]

Many thanks for bringing this method to our attention Martin  (and I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding cutting off the pins - or not).

 

One question - do any of you have any secret methods/jigs etc. for holding rail upright when you start soldering to sleepers?  It's not so bad on straight track work as a wooden batten works well, but on curved track ??

 

Hi Brian,

 

It's a long time since I tried the vero pin method (remember white-metal half-chairs?), but I don't recall any difficulty in trimming the pins. Use flush-cutting electronics snips or a Xuron rail cutter, followed by a quick rub with a coarse file.

 

Strictly speaking the rail should be canted inwards at 1:20, not vertical. You can do that by using the plastic chairs upside down to hold the rail head. Glue them to a bit of plasticard, remembering to get them the opposite way round to normal.

 

But it's a lot of faff for copper-clad construction which traditionally uses vertical rails. No-one has ever noticed the difference in 4mm scale on a finished layout.

 

For vertical rails, try this -- fill between two sleepers with some blu-tack, just proud. Push two 2p coins down onto the blu-tack so that they are sitting on the sleeper surface, and push them towards the rail, one on each side. They are 0.080" thick with smooth square edges, so will make a convenient guide for vertical code 75 bullhead rail between them.

 

If you are a republican and can afford 4p, you can saw them down to a more convenient size which fits between the track gauge. Royalists look away.

 

p.s. if using the vero pins, use extra blu-tack to raise them a bit.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ramblin Rich]

What, 20p coins to space the point blades AND 2x2p to keep the rails vertical? This hand-built stuff is expensive....!

[hayfield]

Brian

 

Another alternative is to build the track in a composite format, I can see either for strength or ease of construction using copperclad sleepers in strategic positions has its benefits, I still feel that that using soldered track construction for use with chairs especially on plain track is unnecessary.

 

Given that sleepers and timbers are available in 1.6mm thickness in copperclad, plastic and ply. You could use the cant on the plastic chairs to enable you to solder the rail to the vero/lill (which ever you are using) pins. Just select the sleeper/timber positions which will be soldered ones, I would also gap and fill the sleepers prior to fitting.

 

First thread and then glue the rail in position, once set solder the rail to the pins using a gauge making sure that its not one of those that is too deep which holds the rail vertical, (this type of gauge will have affected the chairs already fitted resulting in gauge narrowing). Using this method will save quite a lot of time in retro fitting chairs, You may if you get the joints too hot damage the odd chair, which can easily be replaced

[polybear]

What, 20p coins to space the point blades AND 2x2p to keep the rails vertical? This hand-built stuff is expensive....!

 

Wait until you clock the price of copper-clad lately........

[polybear]

Brian

 

Another alternative is to build the track in a composite format, I can see either for strength or ease of construction using copperclad sleepers in strategic positions has its benefits, I still feel that that using soldered track construction for use with chairs especially on plain track is unnecessary.

 

Given that sleepers and timbers are available in 1.6mm thickness in copperclad, plastic and ply. You could use the cant on the plastic chairs to enable you to solder the rail to the vero/lill (which ever you are using) pins. Just select the sleeper/timber positions which will be soldered ones, I would also gap and fill the sleepers prior to fitting.

 

First thread and then glue the rail in position, once set solder the rail to the pins using a gauge making sure that its not one of those that is too deep which holds the rail vertical, (this type of gauge will have affected the chairs already fitted resulting in gauge narrowing). Using this method will save quite a lot of time in retro fitting chairs, You may if you get the joints too hot damage the odd chair, which can easily be replaced

Hi John,

The idea of using chairs on copperclad is purely cosmetic - Martin's suggestion of trying Veropins makes this easier since the rail is lifted to the correct height and makes fitting the chairs easier.  I was put off plastic sleepers after (admittedly my first and only) Turnout (built under Norman Solomon's instruction at Missenden Abbey some years ago) using them went banana shaped in storage, though no doubt if everything had been glued down from the start it probably wouldn't have happened; they may also have been the thin sleepers.  I'm also a bit suspicious as to how plastic sleepers and chairs will perform once they are twenty years old....

 

polybear

[Andy Reichert]

Wait until you clock the price of copper-clad lately........

 

 

Well. . . . .

 

Even though my frogs are only 0.050" flangeways, I already have made  fine grained US basswood cut to exact UK 4mm Sleeper and Turnout Timber dimensions which I think give considerable savings, in comparison with copper-clad. The realistic wood grain and lack of cut grooves doesn't hurt either.

 

Andy

 

Andy

[hayfield]

Hi John,

The idea of using chairs on copperclad is purely cosmetic - Martin's suggestion of trying Veropins makes this easier since the rail is lifted to the correct height and makes fitting the chairs easier.  I was put off plastic sleepers after (admittedly my first and only) Turnout (built under Norman Solomon's instruction at Missenden Abbey some years ago) using them went banana shaped in storage, though no doubt if everything had been glued down from the start it probably wouldn't have happened; they may also have been the thin sleepers.  I'm also a bit suspicious as to how plastic sleepers and chairs will perform once they are twenty years old....

 

polybear

 

Polybear

 

That's is what happens sadly with the thin plastic sleepers, though I have not spoken to Len about this its's why I believe Exactoscale use the thicker 1.6 mm plastic timbers and C&L added thicker timbers to their range, both of which do not bend. I believe it is that the solvent over time shrinks one surface of the thin plastic sleeper.

 

If a turnout is laid after building this does not happen. I have been told that you can heat the sleepers with a hot air gun so they lay back down, I have never tried this.

 

A theory I have is to smear solvent on the rear of the timbers opposite where solvent has been used, using the paint both sides theory to stop warping. However the thicker sleepers do not suffer this movement. Ply sleepers also do not suffer warping whether thin or thick ones are used. I do warn people who want thin plastic sleepers to fit them ASAP ensuring that both ends of each timber has glue on it.

 

Having said that many have used thin the thin plastic timbers without any problems 

 

Exactoscale have also moved away from thin plastic based track, with their fast track system, I guess Len had a rethink on sleeper thickness

[hayfield]

Wait until you clock the price of copper-clad lately........

 

The cost of copperclad strip has greatly increased over the past few years, Whem SMP was available from Craftsman 10 years ago it was £2 a pack. Once SMP's ownership was transferred to Marcway the cost differential (given C&L strip is 17" long against 12") was not worth it. And at that time Marcway were having problems using SMP's guillotine so the quality of cutting was variable and the product was Paxoline based. The C&L product was far superior, being fibreglass based and the sides being square as they are cut with a router. A few years have passed and the last price of a packet of strip is £10.50. C&L are out of stock of strip as they are changing suppliers and a price increase may well be in the pipeline

 

In the distant past copperclad track was the choice for building track cheaply, both turnouts and plain track, in storage yards it was quite common to see track which has two or more sleepers missing between copperclad sleepers and turnouts similarly built. With modellers having more disposable cash and I guess the cost of track reducing in real terms.

 

Nowadays track building is a forgotten art, one which is used by those who are either dissatisfied with RTR offerings, those who chose to model in finer gauges or those who require their track to fit into a design. It must now be the only area of Railway modelling where the masses do not demand a scale product (but that's another thread)

[polybear]

Out of interest, and assuming that all trackwork is laid using copper-clad sleepers (and no ready-made track using plastic sleepers is used anywhere on the layout) then is it usual to use 1.06mm or 1.6mm thick sleepers please?  Thanks.

 

polybear

[martin_wynne]

Out of interest, and assuming that all trackwork is laid using copper-clad sleepers (and no ready-made track using plastic sleepers is used anywhere on the layout) then is it usual to use 1.06mm or 1.6mm thick sleepers please?

 

Hi Brian,

 

I think 1.06mm might be a bit flimsy, and need to be careful when gapping not to go too deep. But it does save on ballast.

 

The traditional thicknesses for copper-clad track are 3/64" (1.2mm) and 1/16" (1.6mm). The former in SRBP (paxolin) was used by SMP Scaleway but is difficult to find in fibreglass.

 

For comparison riveted ply uses 1/32" plywood (0.8mm) which with the rivet heads is about 1.3mm.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[polybear]

Thanks Martin; I would guess that 1.06mm copper-clad is stronger than ply sleepers though.

 

A thought just struck me:  If using the Veropin method of track construction then both sides of of the sleeper will need to be gapped.  Very easy to miss, but blatantly obvious once you've thought about it....

 

polybear

[martin_wynne]

I was lucky enough to find a few veropins tucked away , so I though I'd give it a go:

(Look away now Martin - two of the Pins are decidedly on the p**s  .  First Lesson - getting the Pins right on the rail & sleeper centrelines really helps later on when fitting the chairs (I was using a Templot template with rail centres marked).  I drilled the hole at 1mm, but next time I'll pilot drill the hole much smaller [0.5mm, maybe smaller?] which should help)

 

Hi Brian,

 

As you probably know, on Adavoyle Junction we moulded the chairs in situ around the Brook-Smith rivet heads. We had the same problem of not always getting the rivets exactly under the rail centre-line, which prevented the moulding tools from fitting properly up to the rail. Our standard practice after soldering the rails was to dress the rivets for chairing by taking the top corner off the rivet using the edge of a Dremel abrasive disc. It takes only a second or two on each one.

 

For our rivets in plywood it was important not to take too much, otherwise the rivet might become loose. With vero pins securely soldered in copper laminate you could be a bit more severe, and remove most of the pin head which protrudes beyond the foot of the rail. The time taken would be more than repaid in ease of fitting the half-chairs.

 

(Take the usual care to clean up the dust because it will include toxic lead from the solder.)

 

p.s. If using double-sided copper-clad, remember that with vero pins it will need gapping on the underside too. Single-sided would be a lot easier (and was what I originally used).

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

Why not raise it using brass shim , the solder will tap fill ?

[Pacific231G]

Martin et al.

Not just out of curiosity but has anyone used 00-SF track standards (16.2mm track gauge with 1.0mm flangeways) for H0 in order to get the same reduction in crossing gaps etc using RTR wheelsets? If C&L offered this option it could be useful and it's not an academic question because a lot of French railways (and possibly others) used bullhead rail. Some adjustment of sleeper sizes would be needed though sleeper spacing varied considerably between companies and for different levels of traffic.

[martin_wynne]

Not just out of curiosity but has anyone used 00-SF track standards (16.2mm track gauge with 1.0mm flangeways) for H0 in order to get the same reduction in crossing gaps etc using RTR wheelsets?

 

Hi David,

 

Terry Flynn in Australia has his AMRA H0-Fine standard which is essentially the same as 00-SF, see: http://www.amra.asn.au/finewheeltrack.pdf

 

The difficulty there is that at 3.5mm/ft the 16.5mm track gauge is dead-scale for 4ft-8.1/2in, so there is more modeller resistance to reducing the gauge to 16.2mm than here in the UK for 00, where 16.5mm is a meaningless dimension.

 

It is actually more important for H0, because some RTR manufacturers are now supplying H0 models with the narrower RP25/88 wheels. We haven't seen that in the UK. These are the same width as kit wheels here, so they run fine on 00-SF but not on ordinary 00-BF / standard H0.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

Hi David,

 

Terry Flynn in Australia has his AMRA H0-Fine standard which is essentially the same as 00-SF, see: http://www.amra.asn.au/finewheeltrack.pdf

 

The difficulty there is that at 3.5mm/ft the 16.5mm track gauge is dead-scale for 4ft-8.1/2in, so there is more modeller resistance to reducing the gauge to 16.2mm than here in the UK for 00, where 16.5mm is a meaningless dimension.

 

It is actually more important for H0, because some RTR manufacturers are now supplying H0 models with the narrower RP25/88 wheels. We haven't seen that in the UK. These are the same width as kit wheels here, so they run fine on 00-SF but not on ordinary 00-BF / standard H0.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks Martin. So if C&L did offer the 00-SF option there'd be no reason why I couldn't build to that standard and run fairly modern European RTR H0 stock on it?  The 2.3mm gauge narrowing for 00 is quite visible but I'd challenge anyone to actually see a narrowing of 0.3mm. That's half of even the narrowing for EM while on the other hand the narrowing of overwide flangeways would surely be a very noticeable improvement. 

 

(For what it's worth, though we can never know, I suspect that if British small scale modellers had settled on 4mm/ft scale and a nominal 18mm gauge in the 1920s that rather than 16.5mm and 3.5mm/ft (ish) would have become the worldwide standard)

[martin_wynne]

So if C&L did offer the 00-SF option there'd be no reason why I couldn't build to that standard and run fairly modern European RTR H0 stock on it?

 

Hi David,

 

I'm not sure what you are asking? Modern H0 and 00 RTR models are all built in the far east to the same NMRA wheel standard (RP25/110 wheels at 14.4mm back-to-back). Subject to their quality control maintaining those dimensions, they all run fine on 00-SF, as it stands. C&L don't need to do anything.

 

If you mean 16.2mm flexi-track, H0 modellers tend to use tight train-set curves, so gauge-widened 16.5mm flexi would still be needed for that.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

Hi David,

 

I'm not sure what you are asking? Modern H0 and 00 RTR models are all built in the far east to the same NMRA wheel standard (RP25/110 wheels at 14.4mm back-to-back). Subject to their quality control maintaining those dimensions, they all run fine on 00-SF, as it stands. C&L don't need to do anything.

 

If you mean 16.2mm flexi-track, H0 modellers tend to use tight train-set curves, so gauge-widened 16.5mm flexi would still be needed for that.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

Did I misunderstand your OP?

 

"C&L have today announced a massive program of developments in turnout kits and templates, including for 00 gauge:

 

 http://www.finescale...id=42&Itemid=72

 

What is not yet clear is whether they will be:

 

1. continuing their present commitment to the minority DOGA-Fine standard, or

 

2. adopting the 00-BF standard, which has been the traditional "scale" 00 track standard for over 60 years, or

 

3. embracing the latest 00-SF standard, which is rapidly gaining in popularity because of the improved appearance and running qualities without the need to modify existing wheels.

 

I thought from that that was some doubt about them supporting option 3.

[martin_wynne]

Did I misunderstand your OP?

 

Hi David,

 

The OP on this topic was posted over 2 years ago in response to an announcement at that time from C&L.

 

Their stated intention then was to create a range of 00 turnout kits in the same style as their Exactoscale P4 kits, like this:

 

  http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_384_390_537

 

These kits have a moulded timbering base which has raised pips to locate the chairs, and a full set of special switch and crossing chairs. With all rails cut to length and ready to use, and switches and crossings pre-fabricated.

 

As far as I know there have been no developments on this, since then. Kits in this style are still available only for P4.

 

In any event, the relevance to H0 isn't too clear?

 

regards.

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

Hi David,

 

Terry Flynn in Australia has his AMRA H0-Fine standard which is essentially the same as 00-SF, see: http://www.amra.asn.au/finewheeltrack.pdf

 

The difficulty there is that at 3.5mm/ft the 16.5mm track gauge is dead-scale for 4ft-8.1/2in, so there is more modeller resistance to reducing the gauge to 16.2mm than here in the UK for 00, where 16.5mm is a meaningless dimension.

 

It is actually more important for H0, because some RTR manufacturers are now supplying H0 models with the narrower RP25/88 wheels. We haven't seen that in the UK. These are the same width as kit wheels here, so they run fine on 00-SF but not on ordinary 00-BF / standard H0.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I'm sorry this reference has come up again.Because I don't think Martin should be repeating it.

 

Terry Flynn's several decades old case and publicity for proposing a 16.2 mm gauge for HO is quite different from Martin's.

 

TERRY FLYNN HAS ALWAYS CLAIMED PUBLICLY AND REPEATEDLY THAT STANDARD HO DOESN'T WORK PROPERLY - NOR DOES STANDARD PROTO:87. 

 

Therefore Terry continually proposes that by using his different set of dimensions for HO and Proto:87, that he is a lone voice, saving the the HO Scale World from continual derailments, particularly at diamond crossings.

 

There are two contradictory ideas that run counter to Terry's. 

 

1. The World wide continuing 100% trouble free theory and operation of HO by multiple millions of users, including the technical groups in the US, Germany, France , etc.

 

2. Any analysis of Terry's spreadsheets, including his hidden columns, shows them to be doctored with his own constants, to "prove" his points.

 

No-one has to take my word for any of this. A google search for Mr. Flynn and model railways will throw up dozens of references to old e-list and forums where Terry has expounded his ideas and and met with massive rejection by credible experts, including most of those from Australia. And the spreadsheets I believe are still available to view on his original website.

 

The eventual inclusion (or conversion, or even creation) of Terry into the Australian Standards Group around the Millenium, seems to be a case of setting up a "group" with only a few members solely to be independent of and to continue to disagree with the US NMRA.

 

This is NOT a case of resistance to making the track gauge less than scale. This a case of rejecting pseudo science maths underpinning false claims.

 

Andy

 

PS. Terry's claims have never been based on supporting using code 88 wheels. His position has always been that "modern" code 110 RTR wheels are already "finescale", and that no improvement is needed.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Andy,

 

I have no knowledge of Terry's motives or ideas, or the view of the worldwide H0 community about his standards.

 

The fact remains however, that his published dimensions for H0 Fine are essentially similar to 00-SF, and the critical check gauge is exactly the same at 15.20mm min.

 

Clearly his suggested minimum wheel width (2.1mm) is too narrow, making no allowance for a prototypical blunt nose on the vee, or the top corner radius on the rail. For 00-SF the minimum wheel width is 2.25mm (Ultrascale/EMGS/code 88).

 

 

case and publicity for proposing a 16.2 mm gauge for HO is quite different from Martin's.

 

I wish to point out that I am not proposing 16.2mm or claiming any ownership or responsibility for it.

 

I'm simply reporting what has been around for over 40 years now. It came out of the EM Gauge Society in the early 1970s as "EM minus 2". It was the late Roy Miller of the EMGS who first told me about it, about 1972. I believe the MRC in London used it for one or more of their layouts in the 1970s.

 

My only recent contributions have been to give it the designation "00-SF" in Templot, and draw folks attention to it as a means of mixing kit wheels and modern RTR wheels on the same track.

 

It was actually Dave Smith at the Carshalton club who discovered that fact -- those now getting good results from 00-SF owe him their thanks, not me. See: http://www.csmrc.co.uk/layoutpageOilDrumLane.html

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

Hi David,

 

The OP on this topic was posted over 2 years ago in response to an announcement at that time from C&L.

 

With all rails cut to length and ready to use, and switches and crossings pre-fabricated.

 

As far as I know there have been no developments on this, since then. Kits in this style are still available only for P4.

 

In any event, the relevance to H0 isn't too clear?

 

regards.

 

Martin.

OK Martin my mistake; I saw the 8th March but didn't notice it was 2013 so thought this was a live issue.

 

The relevance to European H0 is that, perhaps with some work on the width of sleepers, the same improvement in appearance and running should apply. For older track where sleeper spacing could be as wide as 80cms or more the standard British sleeper spacing for 1:76 scale would still be prototypical.

I'm not proposing or promoting it, just thinking I might try it.

[hayfield]

Hi Brian,

 

As you probably know, on Adavoyle Junction we moulded the chairs in situ around the Brook-Smith rivet heads. We had the same problem of not always getting the rivets exactly under the rail centre-line, which prevented the moulding tools from fitting properly up to the rail. Our standard practice after soldering the rails was to dress the rivets for chairing by taking the top corner off the rivet using the edge of a Dremel abrasive disc. It takes only a second or two on each one.

 

For our rivets in plywood it was important not to take too much, otherwise the rivet might become loose. With vero pins securely soldered in copper laminate you could be a bit more severe, and remove most of the pin head which protrudes beyond the foot of the rail. The time taken would be more than repaid in ease of fitting the half-chairs.

 

(Take the usual care to clean up the dust because it will include toxic lead from the solder.)

 

p.s. If using double-sided copper-clad, remember that with vero pins it will need gapping on the underside too. Single-sided would be a lot easier (and was what I originally used).

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

Why not raise it using brass shim , the solder will tap fill ?

 

If you do wish to use soldered construction with chairs, then I would strongly advise a Hybrid construction. As I build track to both disciplines there are benefits to each method.

 

Firstly I would use both 1.6 mm thick copperclad strip and plastic timbers, next I would decide which timbers would be copperclad 3/4 max around the common crossing, them a couple on the curve, then one each at the stop gauge and set point.

 

I would pre gap and fill the copperclad sleepers, and use 2 mm wide 0.5 mm copperclad strip rather than brass shim. I would pre thread the plastic chairs and keep them away from areas to be soldered until soldering has been done.

 

Once the rails have been soldered to the copper clad strip I would file the strip back to the rail sides.

 

There is another method which is to use brass chairs (sparingly) rather than shim. One could also use wooden sleepers instead of plastic ones and copperclad sleepers could also be replaced with either brass or vero pins used.

 

I guess there are other options available as well

 

I have thought about building a Hybrid constructed turnout for some time, but see no real benefit other than piece of mind