Large Scale Central

Questions and Opinions on Narrow Gauge Railroads

Prototypes
#1

Background
My interests cover the 2 foot gauge Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes Railroad of the late 1920’s
and early 1930’s (end of operations) and the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad 3 foot
gauge of the 1960’s. These are the basis for my fictional Douglas, Ponderosa & Western Railroad
that I’m currently building freight cars. I like the freight cars of these two railroads because I
can standardize frames for different car types and I like the 2-6-2 prairie type locomotives of
the SR&RL and the D&RGW’s K-36 and K-37 class 2-8-2 Mikados.

With that in mind, I’ve been pondering rail sizes needed to model track of these railroads.
Sandy River was mostly 65 pound rail with some 80 pound I believe. Smallest available rail size
would be code 205(80 pound in 1:24) and code 215(85). O scale code 148 would be too small
for my needs as it would be 40 pound rail. I don’t have a problem with using the code 205 and/or
code 215.

What rail sizes did the D&RGW use in the 1960’s?

Code 250 would replicate 100 pound rail. Would this be too small for the 2-8-2 locomotives?

Alternatives?

Have a good one.

Bill

#2

People use the code 250 all the time. I run my ‘K’ on the clubs 250 with no issues at all.

Edit: I do have to review the track for out-of-place ballast before running on the 250 as a little pebble likes to de-rail my Mike…but it is no big deal. All my various scaled trains run just fine on it.

#3

My mainline is all 250, and the big yard ar Burke is 215. No real issues I can trace to anything rail related.

#4

Bill; You will rn into a flange depth problem with any thing smaller (Shorter) then code 215. Otherwise, you will need to turn down the flanges on all the wheel sets!
Paul

#5
E. Paul Austin said:
Bill; You will rn into a flange depth problem with any thing smaller (Shorter) then code 215. Otherwise, you will need to turn down the flanges on all the wheel sets! Paul
Yes, paul is correct and I should have mentioned this. Un-re-profiled Bachmann wheelsets bump into the bottom of the frogs on my 215 track.
#6

I know your looking for accurate scale with your railroad, but I think a compromise on the rail code would be appropriate. As has alreday been said the small the code the more problems you will have running your trains. In my opinion I would not go any smaller than a code 250, except in areas like a siding or yard. Keep the mainline 250 or larger. It is a little oversized but you will not have the operating problems.

#7

I model in standard gauge and I use code 215 without any problems with the standard oversized flanges of the wheels. I have looked into going to a smaller size rail, but am unsure about it at the moment. Code 172 rail is available in the form of S scale flextrack. Problem is you can’t buy the rail by itself and it only comes in 3’ lengths…
Stick with code 215 if you want a scale sized rail. I started out with 250 and decided that it was to big for my tastes. Regardless of what size rail you end up using, you need to make sure that the sub road bed is level (side to side). I think the main reason a lot of people use 332 rail is because it is more forgiving to sloppy trackwork. Code 250 or 215 will find you mistakes if you do a bad job of laying down your track.

Craig

#8
Craig Townsend said:
...I think the main reason a lot of people use 332 rail is because it is more forgiving to sloppy trackwork.
I think the main reason most use 332 is it is the most widely available in any configuration of switch, crossing, radius, and material. You can get it pre-made or "roll your own". Narrow gauge, standard ties in black or brown. No other code has as much available "off the shelf".
#9
Mark V said:
Craig Townsend said:
...I think the main reason a lot of people use 332 rail is because it is more forgiving to sloppy trackwork.
I think the main reason most use 332 is it is the most widely available in any configuration of switch, crossing, radius, and material. You can get it pre-made or "roll your own". Narrow gauge, standard ties in black or brown. No other code has as much available "off the shelf".
Or prefer to actually RUN trains (even) with big fat flanges rather than continually clean up finescale derailments? Or because it's reasonably cheap used? Or because we feel the extra sturdiness is worth the small visual cost? Or because we have one of a hundred other priorities?....

There’s a really good reason for rule 8

#10
Quote:
... Or prefer to actually RUN trains (even) with big fat flanges rather than continually clean up finescale derailments? Or because it's reasonably cheap used? Or because we feel the extra sturdiness is worth the small visual cost? Or because we have one of a hundred other priorities?....
Except half of those are myths perpetuated by those who run code 332. ;)

I ran (and still run when I’m there) code 332 on my dad’s railroad since we laid the first rails in 1980. I’ve been running code 250 on my own railroads since 1995. I have yet to encounter any kind of derailment on my code 250 rail that would not have occurred if the rails were code 332. (And that includes equipment with LGB’s uberflanges.) There’s simply no difference in performance between the two. In fact, if you measure down from the tops of the rails to the tops of the spikes on a lot of commercial code 332 track, and compare it with the same distance on a lot of code 250 track, there’s actually more clearance for deep flanges on the code 250 because it uses a much more “scale” spike detail than the code 332 tie strips do.

In terms of extra sturdiness, yeah–code 332 rail is larger than code 250 rail, and when you compare rail of the same material, by itself, it’s studier. (Dissimilar rail materials, all bets are off.) But the rails are only part of the equation when it comes to sturdiness of the track. The foundation upon which the track is laid plays a far greater role than the rail. I harp on this time and time and time again, because it bears harping: build your foundation right–sturdy and well-compacted–and your track will give you great service no matter what size the rail. A sturdy roadbed resists twists, dips, and bumps; all the things that create operational problems. It needn’t be concrete, but solid and well-tamped.

I’ve not seen a lot of code 215 used in the garden, but those who do use it have it on a solid foundation. Do keep flange depth in mind there, though. Some of LGB’s flanges run as deep as 3/16" (.188") which will in all likelihood cause bounces over the spike detail. Flanges that deep are the exception, most are around 1/8" or so. Given your propensity for scratchbuilding and kitbashing, I’d imagine you’ll be picking and choosing your wheels anyway, so that shouldn’t be much of a concern.

Later,

K

#11
Kevin Strong said:
I have yet to encounter any kind of derailment on my code 250 rail that would not have occurred if the rails were code 332. (And that includes equipment with LGB's uberflanges.) There's simply no difference in performance between the two.
Not being argumentative but I am curious what you use as roadbed. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind based on my experience that code 250 is more troublesome with ballast causing derailments. I use 332, the club uses 250. We use the same size/type ballast. I ALWAYS have several de-railments due to ballast on the ties running on 250. Rare at home.

Is it a big deal? Nope, not at all. I run one lap real slow at the club layout, watch where the train derails, remove the offending chunk of gravel and run smooth for the rest of the session. As I stated earlier, code 250 is perfectly acceptable for any of my trains, but my real world experience tells me there is a MINOR operating difference.

#12
Kevin Strong said:
Given your propensity for scratchbuilding and kitbashing, I'd imagine you'll be picking and choosing your wheels anyway, so that shouldn't be much of a concern.
Yep, I get to "pick and choose"...... and I choose "whatever is cheap" when I pick because anything else would probably require selling off 2 finished projects to build 1. (It seems MY time is worth significantly LESS than a Chinaman's... either that or I must tend to only build weird sh#t that nobody else wants.....)

It’s also the same reason I use sharp curves of used code 332 brass track.

Homebrewed idiotgenuity, and the kindness of strangers is what has allowed me to stay in this “rich man’s hobby”

#13
Quote:
Not being argumentative but I am curious what you use as roadbed.
Crusher fines on all fronts. Generally even with the tops of the ties. With two kids and two dogs, lots of stuff gets stirred up between runs. Dad's railroad is up in the woods, so quite prone to leaves, acorns, twigs and other debris. A pre-run inspection is SOP. Any instances where ballast might cause a derailment (on either railroad) are generally eliminated prior to wheels touching the rails.

Later,

K

#14

Kevin - Did you not stick with the PVC Pipe roadbed you used in the GR Article ?

#15

It’s there, but it’s not there for any kind of strength, just anchoring. The crusher fines provide the solid foundation.

Later,

K

#16
Kevin Strong said:
...But the rails are only part of the equation when it comes to sturdiness of the track. The foundation upon which the track is laid plays a far greater role than the rail. I harp on this time and time and time again, because it bears harping: build your foundation right--sturdy and well-compacted--and your track will give you great service no matter what size the rail. A sturdy roadbed resists twists, dips, and bumps; all the things that create operational problems. It needn't be concrete, but solid and well-tamped.

I’ve not seen a lot of code 215 used in the garden, but those who do use it have it on a solid foundation. Do keep flange depth in mind there, though. Some of LGB’s flanges run as deep as 3/16" (.188") which will in all likelihood cause bounces over the spike detail. Flanges that deep are the exception, most are around 1/8" or so. Given your propensity for scratchbuilding and kitbashing, I’d imagine you’ll be picking and choosing your wheels anyway, so that shouldn’t be much of a concern.

Later,

K


Kevin,
Thanks for better explaining what I was trying to point out. I have nothing against people who want to used 332 or 148 or any size in between. Regardless of rail size if one doesn’t have a stable foundation derailments will happen.
I would disagree with the point that 332 has more off the shelf components. Code 250 has a bunch of different track types available (llagas, sunset valley come to mind). The only difference I see between what is offered in 332 and 250 is that 250 does not come in sectional track pieces. Code 332 seems to be mostly sectional track (yes there is some flex track and 5’ straights available), while the finer codes seem to be mostly flex track with turnouts/crossings offered.

Craig

#17

I spoke with Mike the Backshop guy (he of RC control fame) while visting Bob Treat’s layout in San Diego and Mike said that not only is all of Bob’s track 215, but also, all of his equipment’s flanges are stock depth. Great railroad, BTW, one of the best in the country.

#18

This argument (term used politely, not insultingly) is actually prototypical in the shortline industry.

Many roads often have the same argument going in their MoW/Finance departments: where do we spend our money: a thousand tons of ballast, or fifty miles of new (to us) 110/115lbs sticks of rails to replace our ancient 80lbs stuff?

Had to deal with this same argument with the A&A BoD during the last round of grantwork proposals that went out under the last GM.

Now, me personally? I prefer 332 over a well built sub-roadbed. But, in the interests of full disclosure, my main reason was the excellent price of 36 sticks of 8foot flexrail I got several years ago at the ECLSTS.

#19

One comment about the D&RGW. By 1967, the vast majority of the rail was hand-me-down from the standard gauge lines. There was a lot of mixture in rail size, a lot of “oversize” mainline rail in use, and the the ties were generally being replaced with standard gauge ones. Mostly because nobody wanted to “special” order shorter narrow gauge ones.

After all, the K-37’s were standard gauge locomotives. Look under the tender and you can see that they just pushed the wheels inward on the axles 9" on each side and left everything else as it was.

There’s realistically no reason you can’t “mix and match” rail sizes as long as the rail tops are level. Honstly, I use Aristocraft 332 rail and Accucraft 250 rail together. They are just connected with the Aristocraft rail joiners and not leveled. There is a slight bump when my K-27’s hit the joint, but the AMS cars don’t seem to notice it at all. After all, it is only .082 of an inch…

Robert