Hi Guys:
Maybe the NMRA flange standards could require finer flanges to premit the use of finer sized rail and thereby lower the cost of track?
What is the correct code of rail for 1:20.3 narrow gauge? Would code 150 be too small? If the outdoor layouts were installed with correctly leveled track would a fine flanged loco running on code 150 rail function or is this just asking for endless derailments?
Norman
Endless derailments.
Because of imperfectly laid track.
In the right environment it would work with almost all 20.3 equipment that is available today. The largest flanges that I’ve seen is around .095".
As Tony said the benchwork would have to very stable and most would not go to the trouble.
According to the Urban Eagle “Da Trains” website, 30# rail in 1:20 scale is 0.154" high, or code 150. Suitable for mining and very light railways, but pretty small. I also think it would be very difficult to keep in service in the great outdoors.
Further along the 1:20 scale list, 40# rail is 0.172" tall, and 60# rail is 0.209. Both code 172 and code 200 rail are available and are probably a more prototypical size for representing early day NG railroads. They should also have a better chance of acceptable performance in the outdoor environment.
I have some PECO SM32 track that has code 200 rail. I’m using it for a construction railway. I have had a few pieces of track and a couple of turnouts outdoors for several years. No ill effects, and the cars, once equipped with appropriate wheelsets, do well. I started by narrowing Bachmann LS wheelsets and trucks from 45mm to 32mm gauge, but the Bachmann flanges are too fat to go through the PECO SM32 frogs. Sierra Valley Enterprises’ 32mm wheelsets work very well.
I don’t have any motive power yet, so just push the 4 wheel mining cars, a 2 truck tool car and a 2 truck caboose back and forth. Seems like it should work well with the tiny motive power I want, but I sure don’t want to step on it!
See:
Scroll down to the lower table (titled: “Another way of looking at the sizes”) to see 1:20 scale.
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Not only would it have to be level but free of small stix, stones etc… Would it realy lower the cost that much? They would find an excuse to make it expensive.
Most use code 215. Llagas has it in Aluminum and it is the cheapest way and still be reliable.
The manufacturers would probably claim it costs more to produce the rail and raise prices even higher!
“Cost” is a funny thing. There is material cost, and there is labor cost. Yes, going to a smaller rail profile will probably decrease costs some. But I do also feel that the ability to ‘just throw some track down on the grass’ and run trains, as my club is about to do this weekend at a show, will definitely not fly. Typically as material costs decrease, labor costs increase. Yep, Code 150 rail might work in terms of pure functionality, but is it practical in that the additional cost it the maintenance time going to make it worth the dollar savings up front.
Some considerations that might help make smaller rail more feasible would start with a much improved truck. IF our trucks were PROPERLY sprung and equalized (which most are not) we would reduce derailments considerably by not giving one wheel flange the ‘leg up’ climbing over the rail due to the natural tendency of the rigid truck to do a three point stance on less than level track. If the trucks were made to simply equalize better would be a monumental improvement. The springs in the trucks would also need to be better matched to the weight being placed on them. I have a couple of Hartford Products trucks (older ones) and they do very well in both departments, even though the springs could be just a bit lighter. This would be an improvement regardless of rail size.
Tighter standards, either by the manufacturers or the modelers, maintaining proper wheel gauge would be the next thing. I know that most modelers I know of don’t check the gauge of the wheel sets, and if they do it is only with someone’s mass produced gauge which I have found to be marginal in accuracy tolerance. This is compounded by every manufacturer seems to have a slightly different wheel contour, flange thickness, flange depth, etc. Large scale seems to be the only scale/gauge that uses the back to back of the wheel set as a point of measure. Even if the manufacturers maintained perfect gauge, the differing flange thicknesses varies the back to back. I digress…
Now to the most important part of this equation. The track itself. The smaller rail size would also require the manufacturer/modeler to be much tighter in tolerances in track laying. Higher tolerances in switch construction would be required. I think you get the idea. Just reducing the size of the rail to reduce cost is not necessarily the best answer. How much cost in labor is the modeler willing to invest to maintain a functioning railroad. I think the increased labor on the modeler’s part will reduce the pleasure part and therefore have an overall negative affect.
Just my thoughts on going ‘TOO Small’ with rail.
Bob C.
I don’t let the oversize 332 rail bother me. I’m a tourist line and in order to get insurance we needed to re-lay the line with 132# rail 
I didnt see anyone say anything about frost heave and stuff that happens in the great outdoors. We are working with small scales and dealing with normal scale weather. Someone figured out that a drop of rain is like 2-3 gallons of water in 1:20.3??? Try having a rain drop that is 2-3 gallons fall on you. That is why we have to have oversized stuff, such as in the rail. If your inside then I say go with the code 150.
Jake Smith said:Jake,
I didnt see anyone say anything about frost heave and stuff that happens in the great outdoors. We are working with small scales and dealing with normal scale weather. Someone figured out that a drop of rain is like 2-3 gallons of water in 1:20.3??? Try having a rain drop that is 2-3 gallons fall on you. That is why we have to have oversized stuff, such as in the rail. If your inside then I say go with the code 150.
I’m running on C215 nickelsilver and brass, ladder roadbed in stable soil in a relatively benign climate installed as carefully as possible. No rock’n rolling and no twist and shout. Would I go for C150? Not too likely, it wouldn’t be prototypical. 
For those of you that want to experiment, code 148 rail is readily available in O Scale.
I want to find some code 172 or code 180 rail… That’s 90lbs in 1/29
Old Pullman has some pretty small rail, might check with them.
http://www.oldpullmanmodelrailroads.com/
Look at http://www.cliffbarker.talktalk.net/
You would have to import if not in the UK and shipping costs could be a bit steep but it is still well priced.
Murray Kyle said:But he only has bull head in 180 and Old Pullman steps from 148 to 215. Chances are Craig already had a look and couldn't find any.
Look at http://www.cliffbarker.talktalk.net/ You would have to import if not in the UK and shipping costs could be a bit steep but it is still well priced.
Yep. My post was kind of tongue in check. I’ve looked and looked for something in the range between 148 and 205. Apparently someone makes code 172 rail for S scale, but it only comes in 3’ lengths, and has ties and it’s nickel silver. So I’d be paying for ties I wouldn’t use, and nickel silver rail that I wouldn’t need. So that’s a no go. In all reality I think it would better to stick with 215 as it represents a slightly heavier rail ~120lb. And if I went to code 172 (which would be interesting to experiment with) it would require I’m sure a thinning of the flanges. Code 215 works well with the standard oversized flange.
Craig
Micro Engineering Company previously supplied code 172 rail, but it has been discontinued. You might try contacting them just in case they know of a replacement source. See:
PECO makes code 200 rail. It is available from a couple of suppliers here in the U.S., as well as mail order from the UK. The PECO line also has prefabbed rail parts for turnout points, frogs, joiners, etc. See:
http://www.peco-uk.com/prodtype.asp?strParents=3309&CAT_ID=3336&numRecordPosition=1
I bought my PECO SM-32 track and turnouts from John Weigel at the Peterboro Railroad (John’s railroad & business name). He is located in MD and is a great person to deal with! He doesn’t stock the PECO line, but quickly got exactly what I asked for. See:
http://www.peterbororr.com/node/1
Hope this helps.
Happy RRing,
Jerry
O scale (2 rail) is code 148 and a 40 inch section of flex track is $11.49, almost $3.45 a foot. That 50 % more expensive than aluminum code 332 rail. I think large scale will survive, but what it looks like in 3 to 5 years remains to be seen.
Herb Chaudiere used .148 on his Cranis Garden Railway, with turned down LGB and Botch flanges, took a lot of maintenance to keep it cross levelled.
He used the rail from his old indoor 0 scale 2-rail.
As long as you understand nothing with stock flanges in LS will work (at least from the major toy suppliers), go for it.
Craig- Next time you’re in town, I’ll show you .172. I have lots of it, hand-laid, and going into TruScale, both brass and NS. Rebuilding the basement rr, adding double-track 2-rail 0 on the outside.
I also have some .160 rail (no idea, as some is old, 3’ sections, so not Atlas or ROCO), some 190, some 200…have two turnouts in .200, one coming in about .220. But even more in .172.
Keeping rail spiked in outdoor environs is difficult at times. Best is plain steel spikes, let them rust.