Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby richardedmonds » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:52 am

I want to look into Marquettes thoughts as I beleive he is on the right track here (whoops LOL) however I didn't read anywhere the difference in N and HO code 55.Can somebody advise me what would be better for TT. I assume that the height would visually be reliant on the thickness of the rail. Sorry but I am very ignorant of track specifications and never reall looked into it. Probably a reaction of weaning myself off of toys and into modelling
richardedmonds
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:08 pm
Location: London England

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby scaro » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:08 am

code 55 is code 55. it means .055" so to convert to mm, you need to divide 25.4mm (1") by 1000 then x by 55.

that's going to be rail about 1.4mm high. what you'd want for 90 lb/yd rail in TT is something about 1.1mm. doesn't sound much but it is noticeable.

i checked what rail the SCL used. they apparently were in the habit of cascading old mainline rail to their branches so were more likely to use 100 lb/yd rail and even heavier.

ACL in particular used heavy rail on their mainline. however 100 lb/yd is still only 1.2mm. there's an argument that rail in the range Marquette specifies is more correct. I think I need to get a jig and build some and see whether that .2mm difference is noticeable. no point in getting worked up if it isn't.

if it is ... the option of filing down 3mm society code 60 bullhead rail in some kind of crude jig, seems viable for a small layout.
scaro
 

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby Marquette » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:16 am

scaro wrote:there's an argument that rail in the range Marquette specifies is more correct. I think I need to get a jig and build some and see whether that .2mm difference is noticeable. no point in getting worked up if it isn't.


I think it won't be noticeable if you're only laying one size of track, because there's nothing to compare it to. But if you're trying for a degree of realism and using different rail weights for mainlines and sidings, I think it will be noticeable...
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby richardedmonds » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:00 pm

[quote="scaro"]code 55 is code 55. it means .055" so to convert to mm, you need to divide 25.4mm (1") by 1000 then x by 55.

Sorry Ben I didn't make myself clear I know the height of code 55 but I was thinking more of the width of the flat bottom of the rail. I notice that Walthers sell code 55 in both HO and N scale so I assume the width of the rail differs as the height would in both scales. I want to model N&W who it seems used mainly 130lb rail which has a six inch or thereabouts flat bottom. So I really wondered which of the two code 55 would visually look right for TT
Am I missing something here though???????
richardedmonds
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:08 pm
Location: London England

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby scaro » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm

ah, gotcha, Richard. I don't know whether the width of the rail differs.
scaro
 

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby scaro » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:56 pm

i got out some 2mm association coiled code 40 rail. it is actually pretty well consistently .0044". is that close enough to code 47 to be satisfactory?
scaro
 

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby Marquette » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:24 pm

It may be! I'll have to get some of Micro Engineering's code 40 and see how that measures.
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby j p » Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:05 pm

Marquette wrote:Ah. How is Filigran's rail different from what I'd get from Micro Engineering? And if I can lay them to any standards, how is it difficult from laying them to Pennsy standards based on company diagrams?

As to the correction... *dismissive handwave* Russia's capital is in Europe so Russia is in Europe. Or put another way, it's "over there" not "over here". ;)


It can save you some time - if the geometry of Filigran turnouts is what you need.
Rails and ties are OK from Filligran. The only thing you'd need are the spikes instead of European bolts - and I have seen those somewhere here on the board, including missing or half-lose spikes. The position of check rails and frogs is up to you.
I don't know if the rail is different. I haven't got any Micro Engineering rail. But I can send you a sample and you can compare.

(I thought that the heaviest railway in Europe was Malmbanan with its 30 metric tons axle load.)
j p
 
Posts: 1299
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm
Location: Struer, Denmark

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby scaro » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:55 am

i am not a 2mm asociation member these days. if i go a finescale route i will join again. i recall a comment from a few years back that the flatbottom code 40 rail the 2mm association supplies was in fact ME rail.

but get out the calipers and check ... many things referred to as being a particular size in this hobby turn out not to be that size. the coil i have is .043" minimum height, maximum height is .046".

it looks right for branchline TT rail and complies with what suppliers of real rail give as dimensions for 85 and 90 lb/yd rail. i think i will use it because i like the look of branch line track, with maybe a bit of code 55 for sections repaired with hand-me-down mainline rail.
Last edited by scaro on Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
scaro
 

Re: Rail... and other aspects of modelling track.

Postby milwrd1 » Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:56 pm

scaro wrote:i am not a 2mm asociation member these days. if i go a finescale route i will join again. i recall a comment from a few years back that the flatbottom code 40 rail the 2mm association supplies was in fact ME rail.

but get out the calipers and check ... many things referred to as being a particular size in this hobby turn out not to be that size. the coil i have is .0043" minimum height, maximum height is .0046".

it looks right for branchline TT rail and complies with what suppliers of real rail give as dimensions for 85 and 90 lb/yd rail. i think i will use it because i like the look of branch line track, with maybe a bit of code 55 for sections repaired with hand-me-down mainline rail.


Surely not to nit pick (it is obviously a typographical error), and to avoid confusing the new guys, Code 40 rail is nominally .040" high, (not .0043 / .0046 as posted above, the decimal point is in the incorrect place). Rail profiles can vary (the width of the rail head, height of the web, etc.) between manufacturers. Use of Code 40 rail for branch lines will require either glue or pc board ties to install. I don't know of any commercially available spikes which will not interfere with TT wheelsets.
milwrd1
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:07 am
Location: Vicksburg, MS USA

PreviousNext

Return to Prototypes / Models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests