In our scale, use a block plane to make a flat on your natural stick, probably faster than sanding. Hold the stick in a vise or make a jig to hold em on the bench. They probably should be peeled, I think they would have done that in the day…the bark would hold moisture and encourage rot.
On the two foot gauge lines here in Maine, ties were spaced two feet apart.
Sean McGillicuddy said:
Every once in awhile have a tie @ an off angle (not @ 90 to rails )
We want to see progress photo’s!
Sean I promise photos but it wont be soon. I have to finish my loco build and of course there is the build challenge. But I do believe this will be the next project after that. It will serve a two fold purpose. One I need it for my own display but I am also building a display for a presentation at the 2016 Northern Pacific convention which is happening in Wallace ID where my prototype was based. They are going to feature the CR&N. So at least elements of this display will be used for both. My presentation is going to be on the equipment the CR&N used and modeling aspects of the railroad. So this fits.
Eric Schade said:
In our scale, use a block plane to make a flat on your natural stick, probably faster than sanding. Hold the stick in a vise or make a jig to hold em on the bench. They probably should be peeled, I think they would have done that in the day…the bark would hold moisture and encourage rot.
On the two foot gauge lines here in Maine, ties were spaced two feet apart.
knowing a rough length of the locomotive in one of my pictures and counting ties there are 12-13 ties every twenty feet, which means 12 ties the foot.
Devon Sinsley said:
knowing a rough length of the locomotive in one of my pictures and counting ties there are 12-13 ties every twenty feet, which means 12 ties the foot.
12 ties to the foot?..must be some pretty high rail…
hard to get the spikes in with that spacing.
about foot and a half spacing… with 12-13 that is 18.5 to 20 inch spacing…
I built a live steam micro layout using hand laid track. No doubt it looks better.
20ft X 12 in/ft = 240"
240" / 12ties = 20" spaceing
20" / 20.3= .98 or 1"
So 1 scale " equates to 12 ties to the ft right?
or very simply put if there are 12 ties in 20 real feet and we are using a 1:20 scale the math is very easy in that 1 foot = 20 ft so the same 12 ties goes in one scale foot. Basically a 10" diameter tie would be a half inch, an 8" tie would be roughly 3/8 inch so tie spacing would be about 1/2 to 5/8 apart.
Is that unmanageable?
I guess I am not following why 12 ties to the foot is not correct. Kevin even suggested 10 to 12 ties per foot which would be very prototypical.
Or is the joke on me and I am missing it?
Basically that’s what Greg finishes with but in the beginning says it would be hard to spike at that distance.
I am lost
Devon,
Don’t worry about the joke … I assume it was a word play on 12 ties to the scale foot, in which case the ties would be so stacked-up on each other that you couldn’t drive a spike.
If you are modeling in Fn3 (1:20.32 scale on 45mm track), then 12 ties to the actual foot is realistic. I use a slightly wider spacing – 1 1/16" (1.0625") center to center tie spacing. This equates to a 21.59" prototype tie spacing. This works out well for me since I use the RGS standard (talk about an oxymoron) of 21" to 22" tie spacing.
The 1.0625" spacing matches both the Llagas Creek tie strips and Switchcrafters standards for narrow gauge track. Since the ties are 3/8" wide (7.62 scale inches), the gap between the ties is 0.6875" or 11/16".
Dumb joke; He said ties, you meant Scale ties… Don’t over think that one.
I was thinking to hard and the joke went right over my head. Not an uncommon thing. I can see where the joke is now 12 ties to the actual foot would be interesting and now I get the high rail part. Oh well I am always the first to laugh at myself.
Bob thanks for clearing that up and yes I am modeling Fn3. Your spacing would fall closer to 11 ties to the foot (actual, not scale, fool me once stupid you, fool me twice stupid me) which is fine also. For this I would have little concern for any standard and would be shooting for prototypical. But between you and me no one will know the difference between 11 or 12 and 11 is less to cut and spike.
Hey Devon if you need access to a table saw or wood shop for making this project I know of one thats about 5 to 6 miles East of you in Dalton Gardens. I have even built several trestles with all hand spiked rail on my railroad.
BTW the shops heated!!!
Chuck
For my mainline track, I would glue down 1 tie, place 2 ties next to it and then glue down a tie. So every third tie was glued down, once the glue dried I slid out the 2 ties I used as spacers. That kept my tie spacing roughly consistent, bit not perfect. for my narrow gauge section I used 3 spacer ties, gluing down every fourth tie, since narrow gauge track was usually built on the cheap. I also had drawn a line on the sub roadbed, and tried to keep the ends of my ties roughly inline with the line, but again varying them slightly.
Chuck Inlow said:
Hey Devon if you need access to a table saw or wood shop for making this project I know of one thats about 5 to 6 miles East of you in Dalton Gardens. I have even built several trestles with all hand spiked rail on my railroad.
BTW the shops heated!!!
Chuck
Hey chuck thanks for the offer. I have a pretty decent wood shop and what I don’t have dad does. But the one thing neither of us has is heat. . . or a fancy CNC router. I Really do need to come visit you though. Just to say hi.
Devon,
Since you are modeling early narrow gauge track, you might consider using 185 rail instead of 215. The prototype photos show how light the rail really was in that era. If interested, you can get code 185 from O gauge suppliers.
Good idea Jim. But; will commercially available wheels in our scale sit fully on the tread? I know Devon is talking about static display, so operability isn’t an issue, but a gap between the tread and rail head would look pretty bad in close-up photos.
Jim and John,
Yes the rails were very light at least the stuff laid on the first two years. I want to say even like 40# rail but don’t hold me to it. Once NP took over in 1888 they switch to heavier rail not sure what, but enough to accommodate mainline standard gauge locomotives. They also laid standard width ties .Once they finally arrived with their standard gauge all they did was kick one rail out. They also for a while had dual gauge in Wallace and up graded the narrow gauge rail there also.
But for my purpose I am shooting for those first two years and the lighter the better but it does need to fit out wheels. I was planning 215 out doors but 185 would be great if it works.
Gary Redmon (I think) has smaller flanges on his scale wheels…
Even “scale wheels” have oversize flanges but for the best you can get check here.
Devon,
I suggest you try your wheels on 185 to be sure they will not bottom out on the flanges. 185 is real close to 3/16 inch…could see if that depth is OK. You will find that the gauge will be different than 1215…you will need to experiment with it. I’m using 185 on the roundhouse tracks for my Geese with no problems.
Might as well provide a stellar link that will be helpful
http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/index.html
This is a sellar site with all sorts of dimensions provided, an absolute treasure trove of RR/Modeling data. There is also a downloadable dimension calulator that will allow you to convert prototype dimensions to any scale (also converts metric to inches and inches to metric). There is a rail convestion chart there too.
It will take quite a while to take in all the info postd on this site!
Devon, if 185 is too small, I have some 205. It is unfortunately in brass, but it does get smaller. Painting required…
