[welcome]to the fog
they reconmend the 3m rail for the 8foot cut with the ts75. and the 1900mm rail for the crosscuts.
if you can buy both and dont bother with the hassle of joining and un joining rails.
there is a thread lately that was dedicated to this subject

from what i read of what you ARE DOING I THINK (dont mean to start this debate going again) you need the ts 75 , a 55 might do you instead. do you need the extra capasity

Here's my tip. When you buy the saw, you can pay the incremental difference and get a longer rail with it rather than the one it normally comes with.

You need a 5 inch overhang or so at each end of the rail, so 106" for a 8' sheet is the norm (FS 2700). Festool's own guidelines say that the 106" rail is good for cuts up to 100" but I think that is pushing it a bit.

Besides, welcome to the FOG!

Welcome to FOG.

As others have already told you, with a TS55 nearly every user needs a rail at least 7" longer than the cut, so long as the material is only 3/4" (19mm) thick.

For that reason the standard guide rail included with a TS55 is 55" (1400mm) long. Join 2 of those together equals 110" (2800mm) which makes an 8' rip easier. The 2700mm rail with less over hang works, so long as the woodworker has enough practice.

Things get more complicated when using the TS75. It has a longer base. The TS75 is significantly heavier than the TS55 and most of us find the balance is different so that it is more accurate with much more over hang. The standard included guide rail for the TS75 is 75" (1900mm) The 118" (3000mm) guide rail allows 6" over hang at either end of an 8' cut, which many find the minimum for use with a TS75.

My first Festool plunge saw was the TS55. That same day I bought 2 extra 1400mm rails, which I normally kept joined for the rips and use the other 1400mm rail for the 48" cuts. For years I had no convenient way of transporting a 2700mm or 3000mm rail. My experience is that using the extra 1400mm rail I never had a problem aligning the connected pair.

Clearly it is easier to move a 3000mm rail from sheet to sheet than using a connected pair. Financially 2 extra 75" rails costs less than a 3000mm rail.

Obviously the larger TS75 needs longer rails than does the TS55. I own several TS55 and only one TS75, which I use for cutting sheet material thicker than 5/4" or 32mm. As soon as I had a way to transport longer rails I bought both a 2700mm and a 3000mm rail.

Each of us works in different ways, in different facilities and has different transportation issues.

I strongly suggest you search for discussion of the TS75 vs the TS55. Remember besides the difference in price of the saws, the TS75 will require longer and more expensive guide rails.

Seth I like your straight forward approach to the thread a lot!

I just keep coming back to the issue that at some time everyone is going to need to take the track to a site location or into other rooms in the house to make a cut. When you move from a 1400 to a 1900 the transportation and storage issues are huge. Also if I was looking for a two dedicated rail (setups) to use on 48 cuts and 96 with that will also work better if you have to ever take them out of the shop and go to a site but also work better in a shop as they will not be too long and bang into stuff, I would IMHO offer the following suggestion.

One point I have not seen made on this tread is that the rail that overhangs sheet goods WILL deflect downward if it is not supported! I would never rest the full weight of the TS 55 or 75 on just rail that is extended off the sheet goods. The rail is just not that ridged. I would expect to bend a rail (more so with the TS75) and have the saw hit the ground if I were to set either the TS55 or 75 on just rail that extends any distance from the sheet goods and not be holding on to it.

I do find I want more rail extending on the end where I'm starting the cut than on the edge of end of the cut. Remember it is a Plunge saw so there is no need to start the cut with the leading edge of the TS 55 or 75 blade. As long as the back side of the blade is beyond the edge of the sheetgoods you are good to go!  On the other end of the cut once the front edge of the saw gets there I'm done.

I agree that For the TS55 the 1400 rail is enough to cross cut 48"!  I will also use the 1400 for my TS75, maybe I'm a bit more comfortable with the TS75 than a person new to it. For a bit more comfort... I would NOT go all the way to the 1900. A 1900 is too long to spin around the average shop and not bang it into stuff. I would rather have 2 - 800 for a 62 inch.

For the TS55 or 75 a 1080 + a 1400  rail will do the 96" cuts if you are comfortable with either saw. My recommendation would be use 2-1400 as that gives you just a bit more overhang (that as I stated before had it's own problems) but offers better storage and transportation options.

For the TS75 doing 48" cuts.  As stated about I will do it with a 1400 as I know my TS75....all too well. For more comfort I would rather have the above mentioned 2 - 800 for a 62 inch than go to anything longer.

Cheers,
Steve

Hi, 


My straight forward lengths are based on what is needed length  if not supporting the rail ends, if not plunge cutting, no deflector, not making a custom length, not joining two unless necessary, etc, etc, and what Stone Message specified in his question.
Basically placing rail  A, B, C, D etc on the wood and using A or B saw.

I have my own needs and preferences, which do not coincide with the lengths I suggested,  including a bunch of different factors. 

 I really think that starting with the base line lengths and then adjusting for personal set up and working methods is the only way to answer the question of rail length. Many, many of the posts in threads on this topic give the answer based on personal set ups, and methods. Those are good for demonstrating the possibilities and the factors to consider but tend to skew the answer to the needed length question. 

Stone Message asked his question on the Ask Festool board to get a basic answer, and not start another rail length debate thread.  Which means that I probably should not have even answered the question. I tried to give an answer with out all the add in factors muddying up the works. Sometimes I just can't help myself. 

Seth