In my currently contemplated layout, I am thinking of putting one of the loops around the side of the house, where the terrain slopes away. This would put the track about 8 feet in the air (allowing one to walk under it).

Derailing there would be … inconvenient.

I wonder whether there’s a style of track, non-prototypical, I imagine, that makes derailing very unlikely. I was thinking a sort of shallow angled roadbed flush with the outer faces of the rails, so that a derailed wheel would quickly find its way back into the proper channel.

Does such a thing exist? Has this been tried? Am I just being silly?

Thanks for any feedback.

Aristocraft used to sell a 12 inch rerailer track.

Streetcar rail??

Well, yeah, I guess so. Streetcar-style rail with a little bit of an angle to the "pavement.

Here is one from Split Jaw Buy it now on Ebay…

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Split-Jaw-Stainless-Steel-Rerailer-930702/232460459478?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

Here is an Aristo one without the rails on Ebay…

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AristoCraft-G-Scale-RERAILER-w-Insulator-No-Rails-NEW/172724610246?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

Just so you know. If you run Kadee’s and they droop or the track dips at an “inconvenient” spot, the AristoCraft “Re-railer” will become an AristoCraft “De-railer.” That’s why I took the two I had out.

**Michael Moradzadeh said:**I was thinking a sort of shallow angled roadbed flush with the outer faces of the rails, so that a derailed wheel would quickly find its way back into the proper channel.

Does such a thing exist? Has this been tried? Am I just being silly?

I can see an idea for a anti gravity-induced disaster guardrail configuration which could be made though I don’t know all the details of the building process.

The general configuration is inspired by guardrails on turnouts and diamonds, and ideas for imitation streetcar track in the indoor scales.

The goal is to not give wheels enough room to depart the rail in the first place.

The end look would be that of angle iron inside the rails with vertical part near the rail and flat part facing center of ties.

Note: is done for both rails.

Would want vertical part to be a little taller than the rail & in from the rail just far enough to not bind against backs of wheels.

I imagine that 1/4 inch, 5mm, taller than rail would be enough to work and yet not snag axles.

Here, went and did a quick and dirty ‘concept sketch’,

Todd Brody said:

Just so you know. If you run Kadee’s and they droop or the track dips at an “inconvenient” spot, the AristoCraft “Re-railer” will become an AristoCraft “De-railer.” That’s why I took the two I had out.

That’s why I took those wire things off my Kadees. Don’t use them, but I do use the rerailers.

The Aristo re-railer violates a basic rule in trackwork, nothing should be taller than the rails, the Aristo center part is taller than the rails. You can sand/mill it down, although that does reduce it’s effectiveness somewhat.

I’d start with good trackwork, properly gauged wheels, body mount couplers (so the tension on the train is not converted to rotational forces on the trucks). Then, If I was really worried, I’d put something that looked like steel safety cables on either side, to look like a “safety railing” for people walking on the bridge…

That would at least “catch” cars if they derail. There’s really no substitute for good trackwork and well maintained and set up rolling stock.

Greg

Forrest Scott Wood said:

**Michael Moradzadeh said:**I was thinking a sort of shallow angled roadbed flush with the outer faces of the rails, so that a derailed wheel would quickly find its way back into the proper channel.

Does such a thing exist? Has this been tried? Am I just being silly?

I can see an idea for a anti gravity-induced disaster guardrail configuration which could be made though I don’t know all the details of the building process.

The general configuration is inspired by guardrails on turnouts and diamonds, and ideas for imitation streetcar track in the indoor scales.

The goal is to not give wheels enough room to depart the rail in the first place.

The end look would be that of angle iron inside the rails with vertical part near the rail and flat part facing center of ties.

Note: is done for both rails.

Would want vertical part to be a little taller than the rail & in from the rail just far enough to not bind against backs of wheels.

I imagine that 1/4 inch, 5mm, taller than rail would be enough to work and yet not snag axles.

Here, went and did a quick and dirty ‘concept sketch’,

Ok, I can see that. I can also see certain motor blocks surfing up onto those keeper onners.

Yes, they are way too high for my diesel fleet!

The key here is “a quick and dirty 'concept sketch’,”
They are also too high for the HLW Sparky I moved off that point on the shelf to put those there.

I took my Aristo rerailer and raised the rails with washers. You do have to shave off a little plastic but it works without sanding down the top.

There is a solid rerailer available from Trainli. PL10-10801 comes with rails and clamps.

This how Gord and Fred did it for bridges on the IPP&W Railroad.

thats is what I want to do!!!

I assume the rail is code 250.

How do you bend the tips inward like that?

thanks in advance

I bent stainless inward like that by putting the rail in a vice, and whacking it with a hammer. When I tried that with brass, it broke, so I had to heat it with a torch first. Aluminum should bend easily with 2 pair of big pliers or channel locks.

John K. Saunders said:

thats is what I want to do!!!

I assume the rail is code 250.

How do you bend the tips inward like that?

thanks in advance

I’ve cut a small divot out of the base on the concave side. It works well for brass, stainless and aluminum.

If your Kadee Couplers’ uncoupling arms (Tails) are below the rail heads, then it is the first indication that you have set the couplers too low. Cutting them off is just avoiding the problem of couplers that are improperly set. Get off your arse and set them correctly. !!

RUSH out and purchase a Kadee Coupler gauge, before you cut off those “Tails”. In years of mounting Kadee couplers, I have seldom if ever have found a pair with the tails bent too low.

As far as a rerailer; LGB still sells a rerailer track piece, but it is limited to code 332 rail…Aristo used to sell one too, but as others have pointed out, the raised part between the rails was too high, and caused problems. The LGB one is level with the railhead, at least the ones I have seen are.

Fred Mills

Fred Mills. said:

If your Kadee Couplers’ uncoupling arms (Tails) are below the rail heads, then it is the first indication that you have set the couplers too low. Cutting them off is just avoiding the problem of couplers that are improperly set. Get off your arse and set them correctly. !!

RUSH out and purchase a Kadee Coupler gauge, before you cut off those “Tails”…

Fred Mills

I agree. Fixing the symptom doesn’t solve the problem.

According to KaDee, the trip pins are supposed to be 1/8th of an inch above the rail heads. I use a piece of 1/8th thick wood as my go/no go gauge.

Two observations, gleaned from the posted pictures:

In one of the pictures, the car (Wheels) are sitting on a piece of B’mann track. Note that one wheel is raised slightly off the rail. This could indicate that the wheelset is out of gauge, or the track is out of gauge. This in itself should be checked out and corrected, as it can effect coupler height, and the tracking of the car for good derailment free operation.

The second observation is taken from the picture of the Kadee coupler mounted on the box car. That offset coupler looks like hell, and is so unprototypical that I cringe whenever I see it. But… so many people seem to use that method of mounting couplers…surely some must care about how their models look…or are they a new breed of modellers who have no idea of prototype practises, or just don’t care.

I don’t mean to in any way insult anyone, but…egads, lads; you can do so much better, and have more pride in doing things with some prototype knowledge, easily learned from such web pages as LSC, and all its members.

My guess is that the person owning the box car, either has tight radius curves and can’t use body mount couplers, or is afraid to learn how to body mount them properly…or is worried about ruining the value of the car for future sale to some collector.

These are just observations by me, and are admittingly passed on with the knowledge that everyone has the freedom to do things their way, and if I don’t like it, I can piss off…!!

Smile…are we having fun yet !!..??

Fred Mills