I don’t know about modern rail ( or even what is meant by that is there now only one rail ) but in 1:20.3 I am specifically planning on using code 215 because it represents a very light rail which at least for my narrow gauge is prototypical. I am sure some NG guys used a heavier rail though.
Is the RR done yet?
Well, talking modern rail in narrow gauge is kind of a non topic in North America. Almost all narrow gauge railroads were gone many decades ago. And, almost all narrow gauge railroads built “on the cheap” so they (usually) didn’t use the same weight (size) rail that the mainline, standard gauge, railroads used. I read about one Narrow gauge railroad that use rail so light that it was just over an inch high and wide. And a few even used wood rails. So code 332 in narrow gauge 1:20.5 would also be over-sized. In standard gauge 1:20.5, code 332 rails would be 6.8 inches tall. That still sounds over-sized to me.
David Russell said:
Is the RR done yet?
Planning…the key word is planning
Devon Sinsley said:
David Russell said:
Is the RR done yet?
Planning…the key word is planning
Now, realize: You need a plan A, plan B and plan C. What you actually build will be something like plan N with some bits from plan Q.
Tom Ruby said:
Devon Sinsley said:
David Russell said:
Is the RR done yet?
Planning…the key word is planning
Now, realize: You need a plan A, plan B and plan C. What you actually build will be something like plan N with some bits from plan Q.
yes, that is right. - but if you are a real planning-type person, don’t use denominations A,B,C etc.
go numeric. 01, 02 and so on. that gives you a more adequate system.
or do, as i did. smear on each plan the actual date, when you draw it up.
Plan? Plan? We don’t need no stinking plan! (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-innocent.gif)(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)
Steve , normally I would agree with you however this time I can’t. You need a plan and it should be properly written down on a napkin .
mike dorsch said:
Steve , normally I would agree with you however this time I can’t. You need a plan and it should be properly written down on a napkin .
OK, but only on a na’kin. And then promptly blow your nose on it.
Steve Featherkile said:
mike dorsch said:
Steve , normally I would agree with you however this time I can’t. You need a plan and it should be properly written down on a napkin .
OK, but only on a na’kin. And then promptly blow your nose on it.
And those “spots” become water features to build bridges over…
Back to my corner…
Here’s a chart showing rail weights and how they translate to the various model railroad sizes. Code 332 equates to 115# rail in 1:20.3. Code 250 would be 80# rail.
With regard to the whole “which scale” thing, I think the key doesn’t lie so much in making sure your track is “accurately gauged” for your scale as it is your whole railroad is consistently scaled regardless of what the gauge might be. There are many 1:22, 1:24, and 1:29 railroads that perfectly realistic because of the way the track, landscaping, and surrounding structures are done. When I see photos of Paul Burch’s railroad, there’s nothing visual that would indicate anything is remotely askew, even though the track gauge is “technically” a few inches narrower than it should be. It’s when you have code 332 rail on “narrow gauge” proportioned ties, with a 1:29 diesel running on it next to a 1:24 station (that’s really more along the lines of 1:20 with regard to architectural features) with 1:32 cars in the parking lot that your eyes can’t really bring everything together, and everything looks a bit off. Consistency is key. Our eyes can play “close enough” with regard to the gauge of the track very easily. They can’t play “close enough” with regard to the whole picture nearly as well.
Later,
K
Know Kevin that I believe. I think both rail height and scale gauge discrepancy would hardly be noticed by anyone other than the most decerning eye, who likely is only the owner, if everything else is to scale. I have been to a few layouts now and never once have I examined them that close. We take in the big picture and look at things as a whole. Our mind will correct minor problems. That’s why when I do finally start building I will want uniformity. Same rail same ties with the proper look and keeping scenery to one scale, one time period, one region. This will make it look right at least to me. Of course that weird 1:29 diesel will look funny on it. But when my 1:20 locos are running on it all should look like they belong there.
Yup, I agree, my (warped) mind does correct for some discrepancies. The rails in this picture are code 332 stainless, but they just don’t scream to me that they are over-sized.
David Maynard said:
Well, talking modern rail in narrow gauge is kind of a non topic in North America. Almost all narrow gauge railroads were gone many decades ago. And, almost all narrow gauge railroads built “on the cheap” so they (usually) didn’t use the same weight (size) rail that the mainline, standard gauge, railroads used. I read about one Narrow gauge railroad that use rail so light that it was just over an inch high and wide. And a few even used wood rails. So code 332 in narrow gauge 1:20.5 would also be over-sized. In standard gauge 1:20.5, code 332 rails would be 6.8 inches tall. That still sounds over-sized to me.
Dave,
It all depends on what era you are modelling. 120 lbs rail is common these days on mainline, class 1 RR, and it is 6 1/2" tall.
The over size "what evers’ used to hold the rail help to visually shrink the size. If we had true Spike heads they would seem taller.
Pete yes, but I was talking about Narrow gauge, not standard gauge mainline track.
I read somewhere that in 1:29, Code 332 represents 139 pound rail. That’s big stuff. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)
How that figure was determined escapes me. There are enough variables to make me want to go back to sea to steady my equilibrium.
mike dorsch said:
Steve , normally I would agree with you however this time I can’t. You need a plan and it should be properly written down on a napkin .
No no. That’s an “Engineering Form.”
Steve yes, and much bigger then would be found on a narrow gauge line.
In the early days of the Mississippi Delta when the land was being cleared, 60 lb. rail was the norm for all the logging railroads. It was not uncommon for the lumber mill to clear a scope of woods, pick up the track, move it to the next scope of woods they had a contract on and relay the track. Anything larger than 90 lb. would have been impossible because of the equipment they used.