EZ-Track #4 Switch doesn't fit NMRA template...

[RCtrax05]

Update:

I won't say the problem is "fixed" yet - still a lot of testing "miles" to verify, but I does seem to be OK now...

I looked at all my other EZ-Track #4 turnouts, and found that all of them had a slight (but visible) curve in the switch point for the divergent route - I proceeded to CAREFULLY put a similar bend in the point on the problem turnout...

I did some "bench testing" and spotted another problem with this turnout. The metal frog installation had multiple problems.
1) The frog was "high" and not level with the track leading up to it or departing from it. This would be one source of the "clunk" sound, as the truck wheels would potentially hit the edge of the frog on approach and drop off the trailing edge as they pass over it...
2) The molded plastic around the (metal) frog made the above problem worse as it seemed to have expanded out in such a way as to both stick up above the rails in the gap between the rail and frog, and it also had pushed out to the side of the frog/rail junction, creating an obstacle for the wheel's "lip"...

I again CAREFULLY worked on the frog, filing the top down to be level with the rails, and then used an exacto knife to clean up the plastic so that it was smooth and flush with the rails, but not sticking out...

NOW the turnout seems to "work", and initial testing with two SD40's and an old blue box SD9 have been successful....

After more extensive testing, I will try to post how it is doing....

[jward]

for what it's worth, a hacksaw blade can be used to clear the flangeways of a frog, as it just happens to be the same width as the nmra specs. I build my own switches, and after soldering all the parts together, this is what I use to clear the flangeways.

the frog sitting higher than the surrounding rails is not a problem unique to Bachmann, certain atlas switches have had this problem as well.

[jbrock27]

the frog sitting higher than the surrounding rails is not a problem unique to Bachmann, certain atlas switches have had this problem as well.

Correct.  Which is why I had asked about the "clunk".  Some time ago, I had found and saved this, for in this case, a fix for the Atlas #6:

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/113975.aspx?page=2

Everything I had come across on the subject spoke to "building up" as opposed to "filing down" to be the best solution.  As in the fix here using the strip of styrene.

[rogertra]

for what it's worth, a hacksaw blade can be used to clear the flangeways of a frog, as it just happens to be the same width as the nmra specs. I build my own switches, and after soldering all the parts together, this is what I use to clear the flangeways.

Exactly how I build my frogs when I hand lay track.

the frog sitting higher than the surrounding rails is not a problem unique to Bachmann, certain atlas switches have had this problem as well.

I've encountered that on some of my Atlas code 83 No. 6 switches.  The judicious use of a flat file is required to lower the frog casting.  I notice some of the longer wheel based steamers would "bump" when going through switches and the file fixed it.

Cheers

Roger T.

[jward]

so trax's solution works better than the one endorsed by that magazine? it would seem to me to be easier than to try to build up like they suggest.

my dad, who I learned my trackwork skills from, has a saying that if you need to shim up a piece of track to get it to work, you've done something wrong. while he was mainly referring to twists in the trackwork that caused derailments, it would also apply here. critical locations like switchpoints and frogs are no place for a vertical curve and especially not a hump in the track.

[jbrock27]

so trax's solution works better than the one endorsed by that magazine? it would seem to me to be easier than to try to build up like they suggest...if you need to shim up a piece of track to get it to work, you've done something wrong...critical locations like switchpoints and frogs are no place for a...not a hump in the track.

I can only assume you are addressing me, since you often find reason to disagree with things I post and by rule are quicker to point that out, than to affirm agreement.  So I will respond on that assumption.
Maybe you did not read through the whole link.  No one placed a "hump" in the track, rather the process was filling in a dip, "pothole" if you will, in the track to bring it to level.  Don't know what you see as complicated about that solution, it looks pretty simple to me with material easily available.  Plus, no worry about removing too much material.  When you go about it by removing material, you run the risk of taking too much off and if you do, no way to put material back, so...
Regardless of the whole generations of model railroading bit, different solutions are presented to help solve various problems and can make themselves known as time rolls along.   They can be used or not, but hey, whatever you say.  To each his own.  Seems to me more questions should be asked as to why these turnouts need so much "tweaking " in the first place.