David Maynard said:
Steve yes, and much bigger then would be found on a narrow gauge line.
Probably twice as big, 60 lb being the norm on narrow gauge.
Steve Featherkile said:
David Maynard said:
Steve yes, and much bigger then would be found on a narrow gauge line.
Probably twice as big, 60 lb being the norm on narrow gauge.
The CR&N used some 40# and most all o it was 55# rail. So when speaking at least my narrow gauge 332 would be gigantic. That is why I a hoping to use 215.
Devon, size doesn’t matter (that much)
talking about rails, are we?
if you weather your rails, that only the upper face of the railhead is shiny, even the big G rail does not look too overhelming.
Korm Kormsen said:
Devon, size doesn’t matter (that much)
talking about rails, are we?
if you weather your rails, that only the upper face of the railhead is shiny, even the big G rail does not look too overhelming.
Since I am starting out fresh and using flex track then I have to pick one anyway so might as well choose one that closely resembles what I am after. But i agree I get a screaming deal on a bunch of 332 I wont pass it up.
Lewis Polk’s own words were that ‘1/29th provided the increased WOW! factor that just wasn’t there in Gauge 1’. That having been said, it must be pointed out that here in yUK there are two-equally divided camps in Gauge 1 circles. There are those who model British outline exclusively in 1/32nd scale, and those who model in 10mm scale - which is as near as dammit 1/30th scale.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, we have our Japanese chums, Aster, who made ALL their Japanese prototype models in 1/30th scale because -
a. Their mainline trains are already pretty small [Shinkansen excepted], because
b. Their mainline rail gauge [Shinkansen excepted] is only 3ft 6in - ‘Cape Gauge’ in railway parlance.
Having seen a beautiful scratch-built live-steam C62 passenger locomotive in true 1/32nd scale, running on 33.3mm gauge track, the difference between the two scales is obvious.
tac
Ottawa Valley GRS and others
Devon,
In my opinion, (just mine only), code 215 or even code 250 is too small for outdoor use.
Because, if you are like me, you will accidentally step on it during maintenance, or re -railing a car, planting, etc.
And if you invite friends over, who run semi scale or “pizza cutter” wheels, wheel flanges may make contact with the “tie plates”.
Also switches in those codes are more expensive.
I have found that my 332 LGB brass is practically indestructible, and has weathered to a nice dark brown color. With my small sized ballast, it looks fine with my 1:20.3 stock.
But, each to his own…
I’m in jb’s camp on this one. Only if I was a slave to a true scale appearance, and could guarantee a truly bombproof roadbed, like concrete, would I consider anything less than Code 332. Note that concrete does not include ladder. It probably does include 2 x 8 pressure treated wood or cedar, though. I’ve tried the ladder and the odd kick from 2 and 4 footed clumsy oafs was detrimental to my 332 stainless. I shudder to think what might have happened to 215 aluminum.
Alcoa is closing four of their plants. I wonder what that is going to do to the cost of track.
I’m with you, Steve…Those other lighter rails look great, but if you are going to do anything other than take pictures, and admire your great models, you have to face reality, and use something that will stand up to the real World out there. The question really is…how much maintenance do you really want to be faced with over the long term, and do you really want to enjoy operation, without frustration.
I’ve been able to observe others, and from what I’ve seen, over a long period; I’m glad I stuck with 332, on plastic ties, and 2x8 roadbed.
BUT…I strongly defend everyone’s right to use whatever they care to…as long as they are truly having pleasure in this great hobby.
I still don’t think that code 332 stainless looks all that bad.
But that’s just my opinion.
…of course; if you are building a model railroad indoors, with a controlled environment…I’d even attempt using anything down to code 100…At one time I built a model of an “A Frame” turntable, and used code 100 rail for the rail around the pit. It worked very well. The whole thing worked great, but didn’t stand up over the long term, out there where Mother Nature determines the life span of everything, and the smaller the scale is from 1:1, the faster she makes it return to dust…!!..oh the rail stood up, but the wood didn’t…!!
BTW…code 250, or 215, makes great guard rails on bridges, when the running rails are 332…
On most real railroads, you will find heavy rail on the main tracks, and lighter rails on secondary trackage, like sidings and spurs.
I appreciate the experienced advice. Let me restate things a bit so folks can better help me out. I honestly could care less about the look of the rail. I have seen 332 up close with 1:29 locomotives and never gave it a thought as to the size. The only reason, and i mean only reason, I said 215 was because I am starting at zero and had to pick something. Since I have bought zero track I can easily change my mind. In order of priority I want reliability, uniformity, and then aesthetics. No track power so I don’t give a hoot about conductivity.
Now what I do care about is the price. Since I am starting at zero and have a large purchase to be made in track, the cost of aluminum is very appealing. Even if bought in two installments i am still looking at a large purchase of track. What the reality of price means is having a RR in two to three years or having one in 5-6 years. I wish this didn’t have to be a defining factor but just as durability, maintenance, and clumsy people are a reality so is my pocket book.
Now I am a realist here as well. One can do this two ways with a limited budget. One can take their time and do it “right” with the best track money can buy (read code 332 in stainless, Nickle, brass) and be resolved that an out door railroad is a much further future reality. This isn’t a bad notion in that I can make small purchases of track as money allows and make a stock pile of cars, buildings, bridges ect in the meantime. Or the other route is to say OK my budget wont allow the best so sacrifices must made in the short term and use a lesser track (read code 250 aluminum) and get a railroad up and running and be content to fix problems as they arise, and know full well that they will arise. The 3rd option and it is a real one is that if you don’t have the money to do it right then why are you doing it at all. All three options are valid in my opinion.
One thing I might through out there as a potential variable is the fact that I won’t have to put up with critters invading the space other than the two legged kind. Also the very nature of my space will limit me to operating within the layout instead of from the outside. The vast majority of it will be able to be reached without having to climb on the layout. A lean and maybe a well placed knee an one should (yeah right) be able to reach most everything. Does this help my cause? I will have to have well defined human crossings where one must cross the track to access other areas and these will be built so that the top of the rail will be at the same height as the path ( I have thought a bit about humans squishing things).
This is the time to chime in before Ihave bought anything. I welcome the advice of people who have gone before me. I do take peoples advice here seriously. I am the first to admit I am way out of my league, all of these problems are unique to Large scale outdoors.
One option is to put off the out door RR and buy track over time and indulge my itch with building an indoor micro and taking my toys to club events. Liek i said This is the right time toget advice and weigh all the options and opinions.
Should I go 332, whats a good the best source for flex track? I don’t want to hand lay that much track so track and tie strips. I thought I had my mind made up so I quite looking.
Let me chime in for a second Devon about code 250 and code 215 rail. I’ve operated at Dave Goodson’s place and he has all code 250 rail, with some sections of 215. I’ve never had a problem running anything over code 250 or 215 with stock flanges (llagas creek track). My first layout was all code 250 hand spiked, and it was just fine. I’ve since gone to code 215 as it better represents 110# rail in 1/29. I’ve even thought about finding some code 180 to represent 90# rail just to see if it would work. The only problem I had with 250 was when a tree branch fell on the track and bent the rail.
Personally I think the difference is not the rail height but the type of roadbed/substructure you build. Code 215 and 250 isn’t as forgiving for those small bumps and dips that code 332 seems to handle just fine.
My two cents…
I have to agree, the less robust the track, the more it has to be supported. Even code 332 aluminum isn’t as strong as code 332 stainless (or brass) so it can develop dips and twists easier, where its not properly supported. If you use a firm base for the track, a solid base, then all you should have to worry about is accidental damage. If its placed where it cant be stepped on, then you (theoretically) minimize the accidental damage that should occur.
Joe Wilson had an impressive amount of track, in aluminum. I think it was code 250. I never heard him complain about making the choice of going with a less durable track, and he used to run his trains a lot. His set up was also elevated, so it didn’t get stepped on. So with the right support, you should be fine
I was/am in the camp where I will spend the extra cash and effort on track, so that I don’t have track frustrations. I also understand cost, ease of construction (stainless teds to refuse to bend sometimes) and all the other points you make Devon. If you understand that you may have to do the odd repair to the track, then you are not going into it blind. Even with code 332 stainless, I have to do the odd repair. It comes with having a railroad.
Again thanks for the advice. I have to say that is why I love this forum. This is all stuff that I don’t necessarily have to learn the hard way. The willingness of people to offer constructive opinions and then be tolerant of peoples declensions to not take it is a testament to this site and community. Fortunately I have a little while to think on it. But at some point I will have to pull the trigger, I know I wont be able to buy the track all at once so need to start stock piling. But at least know I will have an educated position from which to make my decision and understand the consequences good or bad when I do.
I do appreciate the help guys.
With regard to the code 332 vs. code 250 debate, allow me a different perspective from that which John, Fred, et al. offered above. I’ve been running on code 332 on my dad’s outdoor line since 1980. I’ve been running on code 250 outdoors on my own railroads since 1996. There is not one instance in all of those years where I have had damage to my code 250 rail from something which would not have caused damage on code 332. I’ve had deer walk on my aluminum code 250, and my kids have spent the past 9 years that they’ve been able to walk walking all over my code 250 brass track as they’ve pushed trains around my railroad. (To say nothing of my own clumsiness, snagged power cords, tree limbs, etc. over the years.) I’ve spent just as much time leveling my code 250 as I do my dad’s 332. If your track is on a solid foundation (as it should be), there’s no difference in how they hold up over time. If your railroad is built such that you need the strength of the rail itself to keep the track stabilized, then the larger size has its benefits, but you’re also inviting trouble with weak foundations.
With regard to the concerns over “deep flanges,” that’s also not much of a concern. While code 332 rail is (obviously) taller than code 250, the determining factor for flange clearance is the height of the spike detail on the track. Compare the photo above of code 332 with the code 250 here:
The distance between the railhead and the top of the spike detail on both sizes of track are actually very similar, and in both cases, deeper than the deepest flanges I’ve measured on commercial large scale equipment (even so-called “pizza cutter” flanges). The deep flanges may bounce over switch frogs, but they’re not bouncing on spike detail on the track.
The biggest difference between code 250 and code 332 is that you can’t find sectional track in code 250. If you’re not one to hand-lay or lay flextrack, your options are pretty limited. Don’t be afraid of the smaller rail, though. It holds up very well outdoors.
Later,
K
Tell you what, you buy me .250 Aluminum to match all my .332 SS and I’ll trade you straight across. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
I don’t see it as a step down as much as one in the right direction. Dang it looks better!
John
I have had code 250 SVRR NS rail for 20 years with no problems. I think trains look more realistic on the code 250. When I first started I had pieces of both and set my one locomotive on each, seeing how it looked going with code 250 was an easy decision for me. I’ve had no problems with rail bending. Had one 9 year old walk all the way around my railroad on the rails and had no damage.
As Kevin said, the key is a “solid foundation.” As the hymn says, “How firm a foundation…?” That eschews any manner of floating track in ballast when using the lighter track. I know that TOC has successfully used Code 250 ( or is it 215? ) on the CCRR since its inception, without incident, but all the track is supported on a solid foundation, mostly 2x cedar that was surplus to various construction projects. All his track is elevated, too, most at waist level, some a little higher, some a little lower. Craig, is Mound House at hip level, or is my memory faulty?
When I started, I was clueless ( some say I still am, shut up, Rooster ), and all I saw at the LHS was 332, so that’s what I bought. Truth be told, I don’t notice it, even a little. I know that TOC says that I should, but then I don’t notice his track, either. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif)The pizza cutters on my Lionel Atlantic don’t bounce on his track, so all is good on that front. I guess if I can accept the lobster claw couplers on my 3 rail layout in the basement, I can accept 139 lb rail on my 1:29 layout in the front 40. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)
Steve,
Mound House is about hip level (about 3’), and so is much of the rest of Dave’s layout. Only a few sections are at ankle height. And yes I believe that the Mound House section is code 215. Dave would know better… Most of the layout is 250, but lots of sections of 215. As I said I’ve never had a problem. But you have to have a solid foundation. This conversation that Devon is starting about scale rail, and couplers comes down to how to build the foundation of his railroad. If you have a solid foundation, smaller couplers, and smaller rail can be used. A weak foundation, equals more problems.
Well if you ever are by my house you will see I like strong foundations. My garden arbor/gate is made with RR ties with 4x4’s as lattice and my pergola has bridge ties for posts 2X12’s for cross pieces and 2X4’s for latices. I don’t have a problem over engineering things. I have decided on a ladder system but I will make sure its a healthy one for the foundation. I agree with all in both threads that a solid foundation is key and really compared to track itself isn’t a pocket book killer. So I can build the hell out of the ladder system and feel better should I go the 250 or 215 aluminum route. This could also be a strong argument for swaying me to go with an 18" minimum height and climb from there to help avoid stray adventures onto the layout.n That was the original plan anyway.