TheRailwire
General Discussion => 3D Printing => Topic started by: ednadolski on December 02, 2019, 11:37:45 PM
-
I'm starting this thread to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on an N scale tie strip for modern concrete tie track (North American prototype) using code 40 rail. I'm not really sure where this will lead, for me at this point it's basically a feasibility study. My motivations are (a) the (apparently perpetual) supply & availability problems that continue to plague the ME N-scale concrete tie products; and (b) to see if it is possible to make something 'just a little bit better' (tm) than any existing product. :ashat:
I had dabbled with this some time ago, to the point of making a file and printing it out on Shapeways using the WSF (White Strong Flexible) material. The results were (not surprisingly) quite poor, and at the time there really wasn't much else in terms of options for better resolution materials. So I thought I would post the .skp file here and ask if anyone would care to look it over and comment about what kind of printing options might be worth trying, and if you have any comments or changes to suggest. Here is the file download link on sabercathost.com:
https://sabercathost.com/medP/ConcreteTie.020.skp
It's been a long while since I've used SketchUp and I've forgotten nearly all of it. I don't remember any printing or scaling options that I used with this file, tho there were a few hoops to jump thru to produce a file format that Shapeways wanted. Hopefully current printing capabilities have made that part easier.
Thanks, and I'm looking forward to hearing all your thoughts! ;)
Ed
-
Ed - Is there any chance you can export this to a DXF or DWG format? My CAD app sorta-kinda reads the .skp file, but it's rendering the image in a way that doesn't give a lot of confidence in whether it's right.
This dovetails with a project that @GaryHinshaw and I have been tossing about, so I'd like to see what we can do with you have here.
-
@C855B I will try... I no longer have the computer where I had the SketchUp installed (it'd been that long, that the machine died!) so let me see what I can do.
Ed
-
All I could get (so far) was to export as a .dae, does that help?
https://sabercathost.com/medR/ConcreteTie.020.dae
-
I think it does.
-
All I could get (so far) was to export as a .dae, does that help?
https://sabercathost.com/medR/ConcreteTie.020.dae
I was able to convert the DAE to DXF using MeshLab, but even better, after knowing what to tweak I'm now looking at a converted .skp file.
HOWever... the gauge in the artwork measures to be 0.390"; it should be 0.354". How long and wide should the ties be? If I can get the expected length to correspond with the gauge error, maybe we can determine if there was some unexpected "growth" in the conversion and I can adjust accordingly.
EDIT: The ties in the file correspond to 8.5' long, exactly. So now I'm confused, because if I correct the placement of the cleats to the proper gauge, they'll be right on the edge of the "valley". I don't think that's right, is it? Do you have any prototype dimension information for or photos of this particular tie?
-
I was able to convert the DAE to DXF using MeshLab, but even better, after knowing what to tweak I'm now looking at a converted .skp file.
HOWever... the gauge in the artwork measures to be 0.390"; it should be 0.354". How long and wide should the ties be? If I can get the expected length to correspond with the gauge error, maybe we can determine if there was some unexpected "growth" in the conversion and I can adjust accordingly.
EDIT: The ties in the file correspond to 8.5' long, exactly. So now I'm confused, because if I correct the placement of the cleats to the proper gauge, they'll be right on the edge of the "valley". I don't think that's right, is it? Do you have any prototype dimension information for or photos of this particular tie?
I got .040" between the guides which would be for code 40. I got .3726 inside to inside span, add back the difference between the rail foot and head, .022" and that says the drawing would have a .3946" gauge. That's not correct but is also different than what @C855B got.
NMRA standard calls for .359"/ .353" (.355" target +.004"/ -.002"). I have measured as much as .364" on Atlas flex track and code 55 turnout as well as .359" at a different leg on the same turnout.
I'd be inclined to use .356" for the target and allow +/-.002". My experience with my Nn3 track is that the target is almost always on the money and the few excursions have never exceeded .002" so I'm comfortable with those numbers. Wheels at max NMRA tolerance shouldn't exceed .343" so there's plenty to work with. And what's cool is, all of this with NO track gauges! Just lay it down in the guides, done and on the money. :D
Same question for me. Do you have prototype dimensions? Also, are those rail guides the shape/appearance you would want? I have never seen concrete ties other than from a good distance. And I can definitely do this. :)
-
I'll add a few tie manufacturer's catalog sites here. Start with LB Foster CXT division. There are different choices for mainline vs: lighter duty. Many choices. ;) But the dimensions don't change that much.
https://www.lbfoster.com/en/market-segments/rail-technologies/solutions/concrete-ties
Rail One
https://www.railone.com/products-solutions/long-distance-and-freight-transport/ballasted-track-systems/concrete-sleepers-b70
One thing I'm seeing from searches is the guides can be a little more robust, more like what I've done on my Nn3 track.
-
I'll measure the C40 rail again, but IIRC offhand I used 0.039-0.040" for the base and 0.020" for the rail head width. (The rail height is irrelevant wrt gauge spacing)
Likewise for the ties I think I used 7x9x102 scale inches, but again let me dig thru my files and make sure. (There used to be a reference somewhere on the UPRR web page, but it gets trick as there are a number of distinctly different prototypes for concrete ties).
Ed
-
https://www.railone.com/products-solutions/long-distance-and-freight-transport/ballasted-track-systems/concrete-sleepers-b70
Mmmm definitely not that one....
-
Aha found it:
https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@customers/@industrialdevelopment/@operationsspecs/@specifications/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_std_0204.pdf
I don't think I tried to replicate the scalloping or the rail seat canting.
Ed
-
Ed, I've got a drawing started. I used your drawing for the basic dimensions rounding the odd .008" to the nearest even fraction. The results were the same dimensions discovered in the LB Foster Catalog, the mainline tie as well as others in their line. The rail canting could be done but I'm honestly not sure it would show, might aggravate gluing and weighting, and also not sure if the wheels would like it with the cant getting close to matching the wheel angle. I'm not going to do that for the test piece. If it was determined after test piece inspection that it had benefit we could kick that around later. Also the triangle details although I'm not sure if they'd even show when ballasted. :|
The dimensions are:
Length 102"
Width at foot 11"
Height 9"
Center thick 7" (my best guess)
Tie spacing 24"
I'm working on the guides and tie bridging next applying what I've learned from my Nn3 experience. I may get a test print later today. If not, tomorrow is hernia operation day so it may delay things a day or three or five. ;)
-
You have a lot more direct experience here, so I'll stand by. We agree on the gauge measurement; I initially measured the same but should have said "~0.390" since I was away from the studio and was eyeballing C40 rail dimensions; rounding down seemed prudent.
My conversions have a little pyramidal "tooth" at the center of the base of each side of the tie. It was very small and would be buried by ballast, so I didn't think much of it. However, it's not on the 1:1 info, so was that intentional (centering marker, perhaps?), or is it a conversion artifact?
Good luck with your procedure, Mark. I was in those particular shoes last year.
-
My conversions have a little pyramidal "tooth" at the center of the base of each side of the tie. It was very small and would be buried by ballast, so I didn't think much of it. However, it's not on the 1:1 info, so was that intentional (centering marker, perhaps?), or is it a conversion artifact?
Good luck with your procedure, Mark. I was in those particular shoes last year.
This is my second go around with this one. We're cutting for real this time! :scared: The nurse said she's bringing the beer. 8)
I saw those pointers and didn't include them on this go. They could be added but I found that when laying this track it was just as easy to draw an arc on the inside radius for the tie end or the tie spacing piece under the rail and insert guide pins in the corner of the tie bridge and tie. It's better seen in practice but is actually quite easy. :)
I may get a print this afternoon. History says there's always something that could use a tweek. We'll see.
-
This is my second go around with this one. We're cutting for real this time! :scared: The nurse said she's bringing the beer. 8)
Best wishes, hoping all goes well!
I saw those pointers and didn't include them on this go. They could be added but I found that when laying this track it was just as easy to draw an arc on the inside radius for the tie end or the tie spacing piece under the rail and insert guide pins in the corner of the tie bridge and tie. It's better seen in practice but is actually quite easy. :)
I may get a print this afternoon. History says there's always something that could use a tweek. We'll see.
@narrowminded I'm floored at how quickly you've moved forward with this! Thanks a ton! 8) 8) 8)
The little pointers were intended for alignment to the centerline of a cork roadbed, but I really have no idea how well they would print. (Maybe some kind of little notch instead?)
I did get a chance to measure the C40 rail, here with equivalent scale size for AREA 136 lb. rail [1]:
0.042" height (scale eq.: 0.0457")
0.039" - 0.040" base (scale eq.: 0.0375")
0.0195" - 0.020" rail head (scale eq.: 0.018")
So the C40 is about 8% undersize in height, which actually is rather less undersized than I had thought [2].
Ed
[1] http://www.akrailroad.com/products/136-lb-area-rail
[2] The Code 55 rail by comparison is about 20% oversized on height, and more than 60% oversized on rail head width. (Not too surprising, considering that it's actually an HO scale representation of 75 lb. rail.)
-
@ednadolski The first pieces should be out of the printer in a few minutes. I'll give them a bake, measure, and check some rail in them. If all goes well I should have something to report tonight. Maybe even a crappy pic! :D
The ME code 40 I have measures about the same except the rail head is .018". I'll get back when I have something to report. :)
-
First run came out good. 8)
The rail guides are perfect fit. Glued a couple of rails down and the gauge is at the tightest end of the NMRA spec so I will want to adjust that out. Cars run nice on it. I will really check things over in a few days but now, I'm going to post a few crap pics, clean up, and get to bed. I may be a couple of days before posting again. 8)
-
Wow! Mark that looks awesome!
This is classic Railwire!
-
THAT is amazing! :o I see a whole new opportunity opening up. Forget copper clad ties and soldering! :D
-
Absolutely fantastic! Imagine what that will look like when painted/ballasted/weathered! 8) I can see that I'm going to have to get started on a turnout fret (#10, anyone?) :D
Well done, indeed! Be sure now that you take the time to rest up and recover well! ;)
Ed
-
Superb! Thank you for taking this on.
-
What kind of printer were they done on? Resin or FDM?
-
Oh man, code 40 turnout tie strips would be awesome !!!
-
This is awesome work man ..
-
Freeze frame this at 0:05, the code 40 rail really doesn't seem much undersized at all by comparison:
-
Thanks to all for your encouraging replies. It makes the efforts worthwhile. :)
I've checked in a few times today, fell asleep with the computer on, and really wasn't up to heavy thought. The operation went well and I'm home resting and with six weeks of limited duty. But this isn't 1:1 ties and rail so I should be able to get back at my RR efforts within a few days... or less. :| And if not track, I have multiple projects that are being juggled right now so no lack of things to occupy the time. 8)
I knew I could do this tie bed for a matter of the request and encouragement because the real functional development work was already done through my Nn3 efforts. And those efforts go on, turnouts and related operating options as well as related track parts being experimented with at present. All of that will translate to N standard gauge as well. The system has had excellent functionality, it's relatively easy to use, and the flexibility of design is pretty endless, evidence these ties.
Meanwhile, does any body need Code 40 Wood Style tie track? Or dual gauge? Or, some day, Code 40 Turnouts? 8)
-
Meanwhile, does any body need Code 40 Wood Style tie track? Or, some day, Code 40 Turnouts? 8)
(http://memes.ucoz.com/_nw/3/78217595.jpg)
I would absolutely be into Transition Era code 40 track. Switch kits (like the HO central valley line) definitely has my attention...
-
Meanwhile, does any body need Code 40 Wood Style tie track? Or dual gauge? Or, some day, Code 40 Turnouts? 8)
@narrowminded Mark, I'm interested in C40 wooden tie track in both a heavily trafficked tie configuration, and a lightly trafficked tie configuration.
I'm also interested in C55 wooden tie track in a heavily trafficked tie configuration.
Of particular interest for me would be correctly sized ties, and tie plates that are correctly dimensioned (omitting the rail cant feature) being easily visible as opposed to most model track which models them to be virtually invisible with huge "spike heads" that dominate the sides of the rails, but prototypically are nearly invisible when viewed from the side.
Photo (1) - Spiking patterns for 13" wide six and eight hole tie plates:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219064848.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13747)
Of interest is that the photos I have of U.P. mainline trackage in Weber and Echo Canyons from 1947 thru 1949 show that both 6 and 8 hole tie plates were being used with a different spiking pattern than any of those shown on the official 2003 spiking pattern specification posted above.
Photo (2) - Spiking pattern on U.P. mainline trackage Wasatch Grade 1949:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219073137.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13748)
From my research, it appears that U.P. liked having two spikes on both sides of the mainline rails, one being a "gauge" spike, the other an "anchor" spike. This pattern is evident on both curves and straight sections on mainline heavily trafficked trackage in the transition era.
For lightly trafficked track, only one spike per each side of the rail was used, both being "gauge" spikes, and possibly (I can't see for sure) with only a narrower four hole tie plate. The gauge spikes weren't driven directly across from each other on either side of the rail, but staggered.
I also have not come across an official drawing of a transition era six or eight hole tie plate, so the exact measurements aren't 100% in my brain. However, it looks as if they're probably at least 13" wide since the 130#, 131# transition era four hole tie plates are 12" wide.
Photo (3) - U.P. four hole tie plate for 130/131# rail:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219075001.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13749)
Photo (4) - U.P. four hole tie plate for 90# rail:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219075211.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13750)
Of course, tie length, tie thickness and tie width varied from heavily trafficked track, to medium trafficked track, to lightly trafficked track...as well as the spacing between ties. These measurements may have varied between railroad companies too, but I don't know for sure since my research deals with U.P. practices.
Photo (5) - U.P. Tie dimensions and spacing tracks of different usages:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219075511.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13751)
Photo (6) - Showing tie plates on modern wooden tie trackage at the Taggarts Bridges over the Weber River on the Wasatch Grade:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219080344.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13752)
Looks as if modern trackage has much wider tie plates than transition era trackage, maybe 16" wide or slightly more.
However, even trackage with more prominent tie plates than is currently on any brand's flex, but only a scale 13" to 14" wide, would look exponentially better than what's available nowadays.
Finally, spike head dimensions should be kept as close to prototype as possible, so...
Photo (7) - Spike dimensions during Transition Era were the same as they are now at least as far as the "head" is concerned:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219081443.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13753)
I'll see if I can find a diagram of a six and/or eight hole tie plate, but it's time to get a bit of sleep before starting my day.
Hope this info helps as far as getting the correct tie, tie plate, spike head dimensions, and spiking pattern for standard gauge trackage for several usages.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
I recently started work on a tie pallet for #7 turnouts with ME C40 rail using proto87.com frogs and points, with tie spacing and profile to match ME C40 flex. A priority was the same footprint as the Atlas C55 #7 for ease of use with track planning software, but I haven't made it that far yet. I am more than happy to cede that project to Mark @narrowminded if he wants to take it on!
-
OK, I'm ready to start some changes. First is some clearer pics that are brutally honest. ;) Here goes! :)
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
[attachimg=3]
[attachimg=4]
Looking at it with the naked eye it looks pretty darn good. At this detail I see a few things I think should be adjusted for close up pics but keep in mind, at this size some details are no more than a few thousandths so... :| Remarks are welcome. It might be worth a view of some prototype pics to get a sense of them. There are several styles of rail clamps. Some are bulky enough that they would probably interfere with wheel flanges and others are pretty low in profile.
Here's a link to some prototypes. Peruse the various sizes, too.
https://www.lbfoster.com/en/market-segments/rail-technologies/solutions/concrete-ties
This is a group of pics from around the world. Some US but many not.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1JZAP_enUS826US827&q=concrete+railroad+ties&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivlf7745_mAhUR7J4KHfIGBvIQsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1366&bih=639
-
Are the ties connected permanently straight, or are they like flex-track?
-
@Missaberoad @robert3985 @C855B I figured there would be interest in those items. :)
I can get some track going pretty quick if there's any immediate need/ desire as it's largely figured out, the way that this happened so quick.
And for turnouts, as of now the rail components will be constructed in largely the same style as Fast Tracks turnouts using all Nickel/ Silver rail material with a likely change to the point rail throw bar connections. They will probably have soldered on attachments affording a swivel at each rail connection instead of a rigid soldered connection, more in line with the Atlas style but hopefully not as bulky. I'm also trying to do this with minimal material removal on the through rails. That's still in the works. Let me know the size interest. 8)
-
Are the ties connected permanently straight, or are they like flex-track?
They are made with all of the ties bridged. That assures uniform tie gaps and helps when laying the straights and also, because there are no rails installed until the tie bed is laid, they would be very floppy and possibly awkward to handle. What you do is to lay the straights and then when you approach the turns you snip the outside bridge piece at every other tie. This keeps the tie spacing nice, too. Just use the rail nipper, shoulder the nipper against the tie where you want to start your flex, and snip it. You don't even completely remove the bridge piece, just snip it, as it's still well nested and hidden under the rail foot, being about half the width of that foot dimension. I start a few ties back on the straight section so I can start a small easement going into the turn but all of this is... well... flexible so with those cut you can still lay them straight. And when laying the straights I will still use a straightedge against the tie ends to make sure they stay perfectly straight, same as I would do with any flex track.
As this progresses I will put a video up that shows all of this. It's actually harder to explain than to do. 8)
Edit add: Also, while laying the tie bed I will use a single piece of .040" square styrene set into the rail guides, one side only needed, as a tool to check the smoothness and alignment. The styrene is perfectly flexible for this. I also use the styrene piece OR a piece of rail, one side only needed, when adding a piece of bed on a straight to assure the alignment of one piece to the next. Again, easier to do than to explain. :)
-
I recently started work on a tie pallet for #7 turnouts with ME C40 rail using proto87.com frogs and points, with tie spacing and profile to match ME C40 flex. A priority was the same footprint as the Atlas C55 #7 for ease of use with track planning software, but I haven't made it that far yet. I am more than happy to cede that project to Mark @narrowminded if he wants to take it on!
EEEeeeww! :-X The C55 Atlas #7 is grossly out of proportion. I'm happy that you haven't made it very far yet because it is proportioned UGLY. So is their #5 and #10, all of them with much smaller effective diverging radii than what properly proportioned turnouts have. It's one of the main problems with their #5, which is closer to being a #4, so people that run cars and engines on it that wouldn't have a problem with a real #5 turnout, find they won't run on the Atlas #4.3
Photo (1) - Here's a comparo between an out-of-proportion Atlas #7 and a properly proportioned ME #6:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219212909.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13763)
As you can readily see, the Atlas #7 and the ME #6 are virtually the same length.
Photo (2) - Up at the right/top you can see a properly proportioned #7 over a properly proportioned #6:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219213146.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13764)
A properly proportioned #7 is much longer than a #6, and if I were to expend the money to buy an out-of-proportion Atlas #10 and compare it with a scale drawing of a properly proportioned #10, it would be the same percentage wrong.
No reason to use an Atlas #7 since it's just an RCH bigger than a properly proportioned #6 from Micro Engineering. May as well spend your money on a turnout that looks much better and functions just as well as the ugly Atlas turnout.
As for Proto87Stores frogs & turnout detail etched frets...I have nearly a dozen of them...both the etched frogs and the detail frets, and I found it nearly impossible to solder the frogs together reliably. After they were soldered so all the parts were secure, they didn't look that great in the turnout. So, I only used one of the etched frog kits, and built the rest of my center siding turnouts in about a quarter of the time it took to assemble the P87Stores kit. I was using them for C55 mainline trackage, so the railheads in the frog were noticeably narrower than ME C55 railheads, which I found disconcerting to say the least. I also found the detail frets parts were way too tiny to make much of a difference in the appearance of the turnouts. The frets needs to have "bigger" detailing and I believe the spikeheads are much smaller than scale spikeheads would be, and much too short. After painting weathering, they virtually disappear.
Photo (3) - Here's a photo of the one P87Stores frog kit I installed:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219215009.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13765)
Photo (4) - And here a photo of my frog made from C55 rail:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-051219215125.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13766)
After I apply the little bolt strip to the sides of the frogs I made, they'll look exponentially better than the P87Stores etched kits.
If you haven't seen what Ed @ednadolski has done with his etched turnout parts/assembly he produced for his Tehachapi LDE, you need to take a look. IMHO, he's produced the best-looking, most prototypical appearing N-scale turnouts ever made. I don't have time to find the link...maybe Ed can do that.
As for 3D printing turnouts, I've got prototype drawings...I mean highly detailed drawings of how U.P. did theirs that don't leave any aspect of prototype turnout/switch construction unexplained or not illustrated.
Mark @narrowminded when you get ready to start designing turnout ties, I'll be happy to provide prototype drawings as well as give you some advice on C40 and C55 turnout construction.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Looking at it with the naked eye it looks pretty darn good. At this detail I see a few things I think should be adjusted for close up pics but keep in mind, at this size some details are no more than a few thousandths so... :| Remarks are welcome.
The pics look great, thanks for posting! ;) Here is my feedback after looking these over:
- Overall the ties have a bit of a 'rounded edge' look in the closeups. In the original drawing I included the 1" (scale) chamfer that is there on the prototype. Since printing adds a bit of rounding, it would probably look 'sharper' overall if this chamfer was simply taken out and squared up in the drawing. (It won't be a true 90-degree squaring, since the sides are at a slight angle.)
- The rail clips can probably be reduced a bit, in particular, shorten the distance that the edges are from the foot of the rail (the edge on the rail side looks like it should stay where it is). They don't need to be very high since functionally they just locate the rail rather than hold it down (unlike flextrack).
(EDIT: after looking more closely, I don't think that the printed clips are standing too high.)
- The clips should IMHO be kept simple: being so small makes it hard to show a lot of fine detail on them, and ultimately they'll be covered by paint (and weathering). FWIW I tried to model the clips after the ones in use on Tehachapi:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Concrete_sleeper_1638.JPG
https://doublebhomestead.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/p1020190.jpg
https://doublebhomestead.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/p1020188.jpg
https://photos-hewgill-com.s3.amazonaws.com/photo/trips/tehachapi-loop/IMG_5470.JPG
- After looking at that 3rd proto pic above, I think it might be good to mimic the flat (green in the pic) pad that sits under the rail, maybe about 0.003" or so high. Raising the rail will help it look slightly taller, closer to the 136 lb. prototype rail.
- The bridging between the ties should be kept low enough to be fully covered with ballast. One big advantage tie strips have over flextrack is that they do not have the webbing under the rail that the flextrack does. Such webbing is almost impossible to cover completely with ballast, and since the plastic is a light color it creates a sort of alternating "picket fence" look when viewed from the side.
- I don't think it's necessary to bridge the strips on both sides to make them rigid. It's easy enough to place a straightedge along tangent track (you're already doing that, and it will also keep the spacing honest). It's unnecessarily time-consuming to have to snip away webbing on curves, and a nippers is potentially damaging to the strips.
Hopefully this is some useful stuff. Thanks again!
Ed
-
If you haven't seen what Ed @ednadolski has done with his etched turnout parts/assembly he produced for his Tehachapi LDE, you need to take a look. IMHO, he's produced the best-looking, most prototypical appearing N-scale turnouts ever made. I don't have time to find the link...maybe Ed can do that.
@robert3985 Here you go: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=34762.msg404138#msg404138
I'm noodling over how to convert the tieplates so that they will look right with C40 rail. I'll probably just shorten them by the difference in the width of the rail base, without making any other change. Hopefully they look OK with the P:87 spikes.
The other thing I still want to do is figure out how to get rid of the PCB ties, or at least make them less obtrusive.
Ed
-
Proto pic of the concrete tie track.
(https://i.imgur.com/XUEyeMa.jpg)
Interesting how the mainline (background track) has weathered faster than the siding (foreground track).
Ed
-
@ednadolski I got another run with some tolerance and cosmetic revisions. The main revision is a redesigned guide appearance, slightly smaller, different profile, less clubby. Also, the beveled top perimeter appeared more like a radius so I added a slight recess down the center of the bevel to accentuate it a little more. It is still so small that it's hard to see with the naked eye but might photograph better in extreme closeups. Height remains the same for proper guidance but also for an attempted rail clamp appearance. That stuff is small! I think it's ready for a trial. ;)
Here are some pics.
-
@narrowminded the pics look great! I've just sent a PM; I think these will look amazing with some paint/ballast/weathering. BTW, how long is a single strip?
Ed
-
@narrowminded the pics look great! I've just sent a PM; I think these will look amazing with some paint/ballast/weathering. BTW, how long is a single strip?
Ed
The length of each piece is just over 4 1/2" (4.588"). That is the maximum length that can be printed but also is in a nice range for managing during laying.
I found in practice that a lot longer tie bed length was was not necessarily useful at all times and that the shorter length was seldom a hindrance. 8)
They are made with bridge pieces between each tie to hold spacing as well as a set of bridging stubs at the end of each length to readily butt against the next section while holding uniform tie spacing. They can be joined on the bench to make any length you might want to use as one piece or just butted up against the previous bed during the bed laying procedure. The bed material takes CA glue very well so just the smallest drop of glue on each stub end will adequately join the pieces until they are laid. With my minimal Nn3 track laying experience I have used both methods and find both have merit but I'm less inclined to glue joints in the straight sections. Hope that helps. :)
-
The concrete tie project is on hold for the moment waiting for shipped samples to arrive @ednadolski for inspection and feedback. Sooo... time to start thinking about this wooden tie interest. :)
I have looked over the prototype information posted from @robert3985 and considered the remarked interest from others including @Missaberoad , @C855B , @MK , @amato1969 , @reinhardtjh , @John (hope I didn't miss anyone) for wooden tie, code 40 track ties with pretty specific preferences. To that end, does anybody want to be more specific?
Here's what I have so far. I'll start with what Atlas code 55 has as far as tie dimensions, mainly because it's so commonly used and is a good candidate for the type of track that this new code 40 tie bed will be mated with. W 10" x H 8" x L 102" (8.5'). Those dimensions are very close but are rounded down. The tie spacing is 19". In reviewing Robert's provided UP information, they have no 8.5' lengths but are either 8' for most or 9' for just heavy main, skipping over the 8.5' length. All size ties and service ratings seem to use the same 19" spacing.
What does seem to be different is tie plate sizes and hole patterns. Those variants can be done but the scale dimensions may need some fudging to make them visible. The spike heads will not be able to reach over the rail lip but can sit slightly above the rail foot mimicking engagement. Those heads are small so they may render more like rivet heads but should be presentable, certainly to the naked eye, and not oversized as so many are. They are also not key to retaining the rail so size is more flexible. The tie plate holes may be hard to see and may need fudged but are cosmetic and can be attempted in several ways and decisions made by test and review.
For now, for lighter duty rail, it would seem that 8" x 8" ties would be appropriate and the length at 8.5' but could be made to 8' or even made in both lengths, user choice. 8" width seems common to the tie plate widths, regardless of size and pattern, but lengths seem to vary as Robert showed in his UP drawing.
Does anybody have any specific dimensions that they would like to suggest at this point? Fire away! :scared: :D
-
OK, final inspection dimensional of concrete ties. One of the batch chosen arbitrarily for rail installation and complete measurements.
Tie Dimensions: Measured:
Width: 11" /160 = .06875" .067"
Height 9" /160 = .05625" .057"
Length 102" /160 = .638" .638"
NMRA Gauge Tolerance= 359"/.353"
Chosen Target dim .356" .356"
I'm happy with that. 8)
-
An issue that we did not discuss in this thread but is often an issue when folks are considering code 55 and especially code 40 track is the wheel flange clearance. In fact, with this method of rail attachment, not depending on the spike to mechanically constrain the rail flange in the vertical plane, the clearance with the code 40 has .002" more clearance than Atlas code 55. The spike detail on the code 40 extends above the flange but only for visible evidence of a spike. It doesn't need to hold the rail down so doesn't need to be as clubby in appearance or as necessarily robust as conventional designed code 55.
The wheel flange clearance above the spikes as measured on a sample piece of Atlas code 55 rail is .030". The clearance as measured on a piece of this code 40 concrete tie design and also on my N or Nn3 wood tie track is .030"/ .032", actually equal to or more than the code 55. 8) So any current NMRA standard wheel (or finer) that runs on code 55 will run just as readily on this code 40 design. The NMRA standard wheel flange depth specification is currently max .022" (can be less) so they comfortably clear normal code 55 spikes and will just as readily clear the spike cosmetic detail on this code 40 design. This much clearance on code 40 rail when retained the conventional way, aside from having a grossly oversized spike appearance, would not be mechanically possible and may be why code 40 flex is not readily available. Hope this information is useful.
-
@narrowminded thanks for posting your detailed findings here! Personally, I am most interested in switch/turnout tie strips, as it would help enforce clearance/gauge, etc. My soldered #6's are passable, but not without some fine tuning!
Frank
-
@narrowminded thanks for posting your detailed findings here! Personally, I am most interested in switch/turnout tie strips, as it would help enforce clearance/gauge, etc. My soldered #6's are passable, but not without some fine tuning!
Frank
Those will be coming at some point but they are several projects away. One thing to monitor is when my small Nn3 switch comes available as that will have all of the methodology sorted out that will apply to all of the size variants. Once that's done each subsequent size will be mostly filling in blanks, adjusting dimensions. A prompt at that point could be useful to set which will be the next turnout size put into the queue. Thanks for your interest! 8)
-
Mentioned before, my particular goal is a C40 drop-in for the Atlas #7, with tie size and spacing to match ME C40 (wooden) flex, so I suppose this is counter to the original objective. I don't know quite where we are in the discussion of the turnout design for concrete vs. wood ties, but I'll point out that while concrete-tie turnouts exist, palletized turnouts with wood ties are very common within concrete trackage. But YMMV. My layout needs these for yards and branchlines, so no concrete there.
ME C40 ties are 0.064"W x 0.055"H x 0.675"L, on 0.140" spacing (0.076" between ties). Other dimensions within the pallet depend on whenever Andy's (Proto:87) switch parts arrive; my particular plan since I need 200 or so is to minimize fabrication of rail parts like frogs and points.
-
Mentioned before, my particular goal is a C40 drop-in for the Atlas #7, with tie size and spacing to match ME C40 (wooden) flex,
Why set such a low, crappy bar? And turnouts don't have even spacing. :)
Turnout drawings are available, but due to clearances, we can't follow prototype dimensions exactly. For example, if you have a prototypical point rail length, your diversion angle has to be sharper for the wider-than-proto N scale clearances. With everything else the same, you end up with a shorter frog-to-point distance. I think this is where the Atlas turnout have issues. You can compensate with a broader radii etc...
The biggest failing in ALL commercial turnouts is the diverting rail. For the distance of the point rails, the diverting rail is supposed to be straight at a matching angle to the point rails. This is why points are picked, and this is how wheel backside shorts happens. The diverting rail should have a BEND at where the point contacts it, remain straight to the end of the point rail, and THEN curve.
The best thing to do is take a proto drawing and redraw it with N scale clearances trying to use as close to possible proto dimensions.
Jason
-
I'm trying to get my head around this tie dimension decision. Looking at the Atlas code 55 dimensions, they measure at 7.36" x 9.92" x 101.92" full size. If we round them to the nearest half inch that's 7.5" x 10" x 102". Spacing is 19.52" or rounded, 19.5". That's pretty heavy duty track based on other research. Robert's UP list has lengths of 8' or 9' even, no 1/2' increment.
Railroad Tie Association says standard tie dimensions are 7" x 9" x 102" (8.5').
I think I will start with 7" x 9" x 102" and set at 22" spacing. With the code 40 rail this will be subtly smaller/ lighter than Atlas code 55 and introduce a .021" larger daylight space between ties affording an appropriate look of lighter duty track, visibly and prototypically. Opinions invited. 8)
Tie plates to be determined. Again, opinions invited. 8)
-
Mentioned before, my particular goal is a C40 drop-in for the Atlas #7, with tie size and spacing to match ME C40 (wooden) flex, so I suppose this is counter to the original objective. I don't know quite where we are in the discussion of the turnout design for concrete vs. wood ties, but I'll point out that while concrete-tie turnouts exist, palletized turnouts with wood ties are very common within concrete trackage. But YMMV. My layout needs these for yards and branchlines, so no concrete there.
ME C40 ties are 0.064"W x 0.055"H x 0.675"L, on 0.140" spacing (0.076" between ties). Other dimensions within the pallet depend on whenever Andy's (Proto:87) switch parts arrive; my particular plan since I need 200 or so is to minimize fabrication of rail parts like frogs and points.
Like I've mentioned before, the Atlas C55 #7 is all out of proportion. Since it's only a tiny bit longer than a properly proportioned ME C55 #6, I'm puzzled as to why you persist in wanting somebody to develop a set of turnout ties that are so unprototypical, making the entire turnout grossly out-of-proportion? Surely your layout design software has ME track represented in it...mine does. Since the Atlas C55 #7 is so short between the frog point and the closure rail toes, its effective diverging radius is about the equivalent of a #6.3 or #6.4...so, why not just use "real" tie spacing as the prototype? That's what ME has done...the very best looking and operating N-scale turnouts ever injection molded.
Also, as I've mentioned before, Proto87 Store's etched frogs are extremely difficult to put together. If you're going to do it, you'll be well-served to buy Andy's jigs and fixtures for doing the assembly, along with his solder and the applicator. I've got professional soldering gear, including a 200W American Beauty soldering station, and it took me two to three times as long to solder up the etched frog than to make my own out of rail. C40 frogs are quite a bit easier to fabricate than C55, but I'm not sure if Andy's etched C40 frog kits are easier to fabricate.
I also found that aligning the Proto87 Store's frogs was more difficult than making them in-place, since rail-built frogs self-align, and keep aligned after cutting the gaps with your jeweler's saw.
Proto87 Store's turnout parts that I highly recommend are his tri-planed closure points and his point rail heel blocks (hinges)...my only gripe being the $10 price per pair of tri-planed points. Both items add to the speed & accuracy of turnout fabrication as well as looking much more prototypical than the usual file-away-the-inside-rail-foot method, and monolithic closure rail/switch point construction.
Photo (1) - Proto87Stores Tri-Planed Point Rails:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/hxQB1rDsl04hdIvW3AgsVYJdFi5u5G8Vna4dm2jvET0sZinUBVG0XcUDx2yZWKf4mughSO7dOhYZm_yl_x_2vpPRxpscpoLNxkfNpvEm2ZxXyHVx0VoGo3SHe_kuDGqfMoDgBnjY7-71xo5M4kLXBp-o6QVO2XR_ZE30Q5IuKQWO86gjZQFYsRzKvm_jmQot5usL3Gy3KsT-uRa6KdwbuoaKRnLde7naeHIq9JSck5-h2SbiNaCQ1jSdDsSJx4b-T0rTV0OMFbnqP1wiHWJAHAPoSuVrfdft_srjiXNp_grtHI-6OX4qMmo7jKzWlo_uJnPSRTIKan6uLVoE8ORzLYuNhmDhCypcjfNAd0BmzTnMcorx5hRQEKnAGxC_F6DUhwhDaWMZS0Uq-JUiTSXrzPJoN8DaXo5Gal0NKl3WcTOUg_8swmqQbdnvmKw6_qJC9GSfBcaIUxZcW-25lyF0vJCvO8foD_3UQXJkcs1m3TkF226ZUATIhD99X1U-gBTIAWJb-UNUi_gIryvb5y5y5mpgdA_6rTwE26TPSgB4ncmdNVubXS23mIwoxvOXA3Z644vWY3IcQGchi8_UA9PfhUhS8rnSh3gDfk022xip0mzjdMW1jRy6NDwfs58I7JgYC0v8V-7alYCf_TH1N_DxKdkKFy07pxyvZiw6Whf_7YFvdFZKCr5gqRU=w1925-h1275-no)
Photo (2) - Proto87Stores Heel Blocks:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ttsJs0cEhqLNbbpKEnuPtoPwTXZd9Vfsp7xSws0jyaYc0pNBaY-Ehb8KrXmFdOcoXpI0OcSOidbiZbX_ZHE4U9jTVUZDcjzpoYEjIMV5KkqeQ6f3jH_5lM5bgqmdNtx7xShqMxctw6S-zrzWSctimt9tqJNV0MQynQNhQJ3My5IZuyGPgUFrbRFERmgtkGgmYBuuOddbmUBwjOHi4r2YXsaGr8B74g1N8MHz12PGZ1hmzf-KuhnwXDLx73EiSCUl8SA1Byque1TwmK56sqKtGv8dEYdfJOQIt66Czbswq2GnhawlTUfmfC_sbWoJSCX1HHpl38xC-0qm5Ai2Ng-n9am9dU3u8AsbM1s3-uK81krxK4QRkclujXub5QhZTij7aGLu6XgkOeuq7NiYLJ5E5PSGtDI7qxEI4V4AwKfT1SNN5wzUGiOhipvyekyozVrLeYnlr8gpJM-bxo5TR4BYzxuvpsE6yYwcSIr-oLfrIVARufkmWCCAVzno4tqY0G8wbKSZa8HdqAy-wZk-5Qr9wIlQy4CBKGAGu_sTxIWdVp1W6Ie_zIbyda4KqVgqgqtNrE598s81wBEY_9BS_l3gLwjzgGNm87pkmmc7JWEDdvLgZ4ocMX0gUxk9kpwYcJb41z2fAzjte1PD1mmGLNdgygl62uayaZb9T7qUg5PjOnKfkwBHgbjE-Nc=w1925-h1275-no)
Tie spacing within turnouts is not the same as what's out there on the mainline, (it varies within the confines of the turnout) so knowing what a particular brand's flextrack tie spacing is doesn't mean anything as far as a turnout's ties spacing is concerned.
Personally, if I'm gonna go to the trouble to hand-build my turnouts, even with a 3D tie-pattern to help me, I'd want my turnouts to be as close to the prototype as possible...not some odd proportion a manufacturer has decided to use to make using their sectional track easier...which I'll never use anyway.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
PS...I'm using Googlephotos again for these photos. If they're not showing up, please let me know and I'll use TRW.
-
I'm trying to get my head around this tie dimension decision. Looking at the Atlas code 55 dimensions, they measure at 7.36" x 9.92" x 101.92" full size. If we round them to the nearest half inch that's 7.5" x 10" x 102". Spacing is 19.52" or rounded, 19.5". That's pretty heavy duty track based on other research. Robert's UP list has lengths of 8' or 9' even, no 1/2' increment.
Railroad Tie Association says standard tie dimensions are 7" x 9" x 102" (8.5').
I think I will start with 7" x 9" x 102" and set at 22" spacing. With the code 40 rail this will be subtly smaller/ lighter than Atlas code 55 and introduce a .021" larger daylight space between ties affording an appropriate look of lighter duty track, visibly and prototypically. Opinions invited. 8)
Tie plates to be determined. Again, opinions invited. 8)
From my measurements way back when of both the Atlas C55 flex and the ME C55 flex, neither was correct for either heavily trafficked track, or medium trafficked track. The issue was that one of them had a tie length that was correct for heavily trafficked mainline track, but the spacing was too far apart...just right for medium trafficked track, and the other had ties that were the correct length for medium trafficked track, but the ties were spaced too close together...just right for heavily-trafficked mainline track.
I mulled that problem around in my head for a while, and decided that the much smaller "spikeheads" that ME C55 had overruled tie length and spacing, and went with ME C55.
For myself, I don't notice that the tie lengths on ME C55 are a few inches too short for U.P. Heavily Trafficked Mainline track, but I do notice several things about it that also contribute to it being my choice for my mainline trackage. Although Atlas Flex has squarer tie ends (which is good) their uniformity is too perfect. Mainline trackage even for a Class 1 railroad, such as U.P. in the transition era, had ties that weren't laid perfectly, so the ends looked decidedly uneven when sighted along the track rather than from directly overhead.
Photo (1) - U.P. Heavily Trafficked Mainline Track just west of Hennefer:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-151219204702.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13883)
Note the uneven spacing of the ties as well as the unevenness of the tie-ends, being either different lengths or not laid centered...a very prototypical U.P. feature.
Photo (2) - Rail-Craft C55 Flex duplicating the uneveness of prototype trackage:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-151219205253.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13884)
Note the unevenness of the ties as the track goes off into the distance and also the not-perfect tie alignment/spacing.
What I'm saying is that you shouldn't be using Atlas C55 flex as your main example to get information from. There's more to prototypical looking trackage than mere tie proportions and spacing. I'll be more than happy to send you a small sample of Rail-Craft C40 flex...which was the ultimate in prototypical-looking N-scale trackage. Nothing comes close to it nowadays. However, it was proportioned for Medium Trafficked Track, with lovely, tiny spikeheads that didn't need to be sanded down except for pizza cutters.
I would say that for Heavily Trafficked Mainline Trackage, use the 9' length and tie spacing, with at least scale 13" long tie plates with eight spike holes, and two spikes on either side of the rail...one "anchor spike" and one "gauge spike" on each side of the rail, with opposite side of the rail spiking pattern being just the opposite (staggered) from each other. Even though most tie plate plans I've seen don't have a ridge on the inside, I'd make the plates maybe 1.75% thicker than a properly-scaled tieplate, and have a shallow basin for the C40 rail foot to fit precisely into to hold the rail securely in gauge.
Spikeheads could be made the scale oval area, but to be seen, they should be higher. Prototypically only the anchor spikes were hammered down nearly flush with the tie plate...the gauge spikes were almost always protruding quite a bit above the edges of the rail foot, showing their shafts to daylight.
Photo (3) - U.P. mainline on Wasatch Grade showing both spike pattern and how the spikes aren't driven in so their bases are flush with the tie plates:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-151219204529.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13882)
In this close-up view, both anchor spikes and gauge spikes protrude fairly high from the tie-plates, which will make them more visible in your tie-strips and be prototypical too.
I agree that setting the tie-spacers lower will greatly aid in the tie-strips' prototypical appearance. No reason to have them tie-high anyway, and it'll save on resin.
I'm pretty excited about this! I would also be interested (once again) in C55 tie strips...Heavily Trafficked Mainline.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Photo (1) - U.P. Heavily Trafficked Mainline Track just west of Hennefer:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/2700-121219025202-138171289.png)
Bob, I see all the photos in both of your posts except the one mentioned above. I see that infamous Google gray "do not enter" sign. I am logged into Gmail (Google) in another tab in this browser.
-
Bob, I see all the photos in both of your posts except the one mentioned above. I see that infamous Google gray "do not enter" sign. I am logged into Gmail (Google) in another tab in this browser.
Re-did it. Better?
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Re-did it. Better?
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
No. Photo 1 still shows up as that symbol, but now Photo 3 also changed to the "do not enter" symbol. :| Did you even touch the link to Photo 3? Only Photo 2 is still visible.
-
All photos show for me. No "Do Not Enter" sign for any.
-
I can only see photo #2 in Chrome on Windows 10. The other 2 just show the description text with no boxes at all below that text.
-
Might be an intermittent thing? Now I only see #2 whereas earlier in the morning I see all photos.
-
@robert3985 I really appreciate you taking time to involve yourself in this conversation. 8) I too am not seeing several of the photos but I think I get the gist of what you're talking about.
On one front, you can relax in thinking that I'm putting too much weight on Atlas code 55 as a reference. ;) My main purpose in using them is the universal familiarity most have with that track and something that can be used as a "more than" or "less than" type of reference as this effort moves forward. It's also a track brand that will often be mated with this code 40 track so a sense of the difference between them should be helpful in weighing that decision.
At this point the effort is to get the basics started. That would be the tie size, plate size and type, and the spike detail and then printability of those features. This will be for code 40 rail so I am only considering branch line and siding applications. Code 55 track will be for another day. :) The biggest single question in my mind was getting the proper tie dimensions and then their appearance relative to the rest of the track.
To that end and where my investigations have landed me, considering prototypical track as well as appearance when mated with hand laid and widely used standard code 55 track, is the planned tie size for both branch and siding track. I'm coming up with 7" x 9" x 102" (8.5') for both with branch line spaced at 22" and siding at 24".
The other difference would be in the tie plates and spiking. I think the tie plates will be eight hole, possibly slightly different in length but not width, with six spikes for branch line and four spikes for sidings per the UP drawing provided. Additional spikes can be arbitrarily added for the appearance of maintenance fixes but the general would be as described.
I agree about staggering ties arbitrarily as demonstrated in Robert's exquisite track work pictured as well as prototype photos but on the first test runs the focus will be on basic appearance and spike detail rendering so the tie uniformity will be unrealistically perfect. It can be adjusted at the end. I expect the tie plate and spiking to require some fudging to get an acceptable result.
So... :| 7" x 9" x 102" (8.5') with 22" spacing for basic tie size on branch line? 8) Then 24" spacing for siding? 8) BTW, after all of my searches with mediocre results, it occurred to me to check FastTracks' dimensions of their laser cut tie strips and these dimensions turn out to be the same as those that they use. 8)
-
BTW, code 40 rail scales out closest to 100#/ 130# rail. The height of code 40 is slightly over in both cases. Code 55 rail scales out closest to 155# rail, definitely heavy main line size.
It seems there is merit to laying the different sizes with their different visual appearance when striving for a prototype look. 8)
-
BTW, code 40 rail scales out closest to 100#/ 130# rail. The height of code 40 is slightly over in both cases. Code 55 rail scales out closest to 155# rail, definitely heavy main line size.
The Proto:87 Stores website has a page that shows some of the prototype rail profiles and dimensions: http://www.proto87.com/Prototype_and_HO_rail_sizes.html
Here is a quick translation of a few rail heights to N scale:
132 lb. = 7.125" proto = 0.046" N scale
110 lb. = 6.25" proto = 0.039" N scale
100 lb. = 6" proto = .0375" N scale
75 lb. = 4.75" proto = .0297" N scale
The page at http://www.icrr.net/rails.htm was all I could find for 155 lb. rail:
155 lb. = 8" proto = 0.050" N scale
It seems there is merit to laying the different sizes with their different visual appearance when striving for a prototype look. 8)
You honestly won't get very much of a prototype look out of code 55 rail. Height-wise, it's 10% oversized even for the 155lb. rail which was the heaviest ever used (only AFAIK on the PRR). The heaviest modern rail nowadays is 140/142 lb, which scales to about 0.046" height, and code 55 is about 20% oversized height for that.
Code 55 rail is actually a model of 75 lb. rail scaled to HO. So visually, the railhead width is even more oversized for N scale. The 0.029" width scales to 4.7" proto equivalent, yet even the 155 lb. rail head proto width was 3". That puts the Code 55 rail head width at 57% oversized for N-scale (for the largest prototype that ever existed).
But for N-scale, Codes 40 and 55 rail are the only game in town. I think that despite the code 55 being significantly oversized, most N-scalers simply have accepted it as a matter of practicality (I don't want to get into the wheel flange discussion) and thus have simply become accustomed to looking at it (much as is the case with oversized wheels, couplers, handrails, grabirons, and a host of other parts). You can mix codes 40 and 55 if you want a visual contrast, but I'd have to say that the only other visual improvement that code 55 offers is that at least it is not Code 80 :D
I've never heard of anyone making their own custom, scale-sized rail, but since some 3D printers can print even metals nowadays, perhaps that's not much of a reach any more ;)
Ed
-
(Aside: Code 80 scales to 12.8" height, which is 60% oversized for the 155 lb. rail.)
Ed
-
Putting together the first test print for code 40 branch line wooden tie bed. Testing rivet and tie plate features especially, fully expecting some edits will be required. 8) More to follow tomorrow. 8)
-
Wood ties are moving along. Got the first test batch through, made some edits for detail, and the next print is in the machine now. I'm quite happy! :)
It's designed as branch line with 22" tie spacing, and the siding track at 24" tie spacing will be immediately following. This will be cool. 8) Nice code 40 for the masses. :D
And I guess code 40 HOn30 should be next? :|
-
Test print is done. I'm very happy with the whole thing, tie spacing and all. I will look it over more over the next few days and see what I can see as well as get some critique from the experts but I think this is shaping up nicely. 8)
In the pics you can see the staggered tie placements for a more prototypical look. Also the tiny tie plates. Even though I already added to the plate and spike dimensions for basic visibility I may still want to add some more to the spikes. Even under magnification they aren't visually too big... at least to my eye. ;) The rail gauge on a test piece is on the target dimension of .355"/ .356", right in the middle of the NMRA spec, and that should hold comfortably within .002" every time. 8)
In the pics, where two tracks are shown, one is Atlas Code 55 flex. Enjoy!
-
Looks good ...
-
Mark,
Oh man....looking EXCELLENT!! Love the tiny spikeheads...tiny, but very noticeable...and in a proper spiking pattern too!!...can't see the tie plates yet...and the uneven tie placement is spot-on!
It's amazing what just a bit of research, asking questions, looking at proto-photos and prototype specification will do for the fidelity of our N-scale models!
Now if the major manufacturers would just learn that simple lesson...but here's Mark...filling the void!!
Can't wait to try these out, paint & weather, ballast and take some photos!!
Cheerio!!
Bob Gilmore
-
Thanks @John and @robert3985 . :) I'm anxious to see some of these pieces properly installed and detailed. 8) I already have a few things that closer scrutiny might suggest should be adjusted slightly but literally in the half to a couple of thousandths inch range.
Here are a couple of pics with some different light and setup that show the tie plates a little more clearly. For me, taking pics is harder than drilling .003" holes! :D
-
Any thoughts on how to make these flex like?
-
Any thoughts on how to make these flex like?
This is flex bed. 8) Snipping alternate bridging pieces on the outside rail allows it to flex very easily making any radius you'd like. When laying straights the dual bridged ties help hold a straight line, making it much more manageable. The bed gets laid complete and then the rails are added.
It's the same as I had posted on my Nn3 track. It works very well. Here is a link to an old post showing the Nn3 as the install method is the same. And how tight can it curve? :| The inner and outer track radius in this Nn3 example is 2 1/2" inner and 3 1/2" outer. It could be made even tighter if you had something that would negotiate it. ;) :D
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=47150.msg619818#msg619818
Edit add: And this one without ballast. https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=47070.msg618063#msg618063
And this one to a video bending rail to set in to tie bed already laid. https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=46808.msg614318#msg614318
Note: That video was the very first time I laid any of this style track bed. Towards the end is reference to applying diluted glue with a brush. That can still be done but I have since discovered that a syringe with a fine nozzle (.020"?) yields excellent results. 8)
-
Mark,
Thanks a million for the new, sharper photos! When I first saw them, my immediate thought was that the tie plates are a bit too tall. It's good to be able to see them, but they shouldn't look like the "chairs" on British rail. BUT, I decided to look at my stash of prototype photos and see what rail joiners looked like during the transition era and a few years post-transition. The bigger the rail gets, the more prominent the tie plate gets is the first impression from looking at photos of real tracks. Also, the taper of the rail joiner is also pretty obvious from the edge of the rail's foot to the edge or the tie plate. All of the mainline photos of rail joiners I looked at had corners on the rail joiners that are very sharply 90 degrees...and don't look rounded at all.
What I concluded after looking closely at prototype mainline track photos, is that I can see the rails perched up on top of the tie plates if I'm looking for that, at the same time, the taper of the tie plates becomes more obvious too.
Although I'm 100% with you that the tie plates should be thicker than scale-sized to be able to see them, I was thinking maybe 1.75%??? What percentage over-thickness are yours??
In any case...I love the tie proportions. I really wasn't aware of how thin Atlas C55 ties are.
Also, the spacers between ties are what proportion to the tie height? I would think that 50% would be sufficient, and allow properly sized ballast to cover them with air-space between the tops of the rocks to the bottom of the rail foot.
Just to show you why I'm pushing for heavily trafficked mainline tie strips in both C55 and C40, and lightly trafficked siding tie strips first...here's some handlaid PCB track I laid as an experiment using C55 as the mainline trackage and C40 as the siding trackage...with radically different tie spacing between the the two trackages with different purposes.
Photo (1) - Handlaid C55 heavily trafficked mainline trackage vs handlaid C40 lightly trafficked siding trackage with no ballasting:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/1200-151219225016.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13886)
I like the logic of using over-scale C55 for the heavily trafficked mainline heavy railed trackage and C40 for medium and lightly trafficked mainline & siding/spur/industrial trackage...so the difference in height can be easily seen in N-scale, as well as the difference of railhead width...then different tie spacings and different weathering add to the contrast between how different tracks of different usage levels can be typically seen...then lastly, different style and type of ballasting, with the lightly traveled siding/spur/industrial trackage sometimes just laid on the dirt, either almost buried, or completely exposed. The exposed trackage with your properly sized ties will look much more prototypical than anything that's presently being injection molded.
I know that a slight taper is one of the most difficult things for a 3D printer to produce properly, but I'm convinced that's what your tie-plates need if possible, and maybe a couple of thousandths less overall height too with sharp 90 degree edges. Is this possible with your printer?? I'd also increase the height of the outside spikeheads about .001" too.
Of course, these suggestions are just my opinions and your tie-strips in their present form will produce C40 track that's better than anything ever produced before in N-scale. I'd like the same in C55 for the rail-height contrast, even though I have a pretty big stash of Rail-Craft C55.
Pretty amazing!!
Cheerio!!
Bob Gilmore
-
Mark,
Thanks a million for the new, sharper photos! When I first saw them, my immediate thought was that the tie plates are a bit too tall. It's good to be able to see them, but they shouldn't look like the "chairs" on British rail. BUT, I decided to look at my stash of prototype photos and see what rail joiners looked like during the transition era and a few years post-transition. The bigger the rail gets, the more prominent the tie plate gets is the first impression from looking at photos of real tracks. Also, the taper of the rail joiner is also pretty obvious from the edge of the rail's foot to the edge or the tie plate. All of the mainline photos of rail joiners I looked at had corners on the rail joiners that are very sharply 90 degrees...and don't look rounded at all.
What I concluded after looking closely at prototype mainline track photos, is that I can see the rails perched up on top of the tie plates if I'm looking for that, at the same time, the taper of the tie plates becomes more obvious too.
Although I'm 100% with you that the tie plates should be thicker than scale-sized to be able to see them, I was thinking maybe 1.75%??? What percentage over-thickness are yours??
In any case...I love the tie proportions. I really wasn't aware of how thin Atlas C55 ties are.
Also, the spacers between ties are what proportion to the tie height? I would think that 50% would be sufficient, and allow properly sized ballast to cover them with air-space between the tops of the rocks to the bottom of the rail foot.
Just to show you why I'm pushing for heavily trafficked mainline tie strips in both C55 and C40, and lightly trafficked siding tie strips first...here's some handlaid PCB track I laid as an experiment using C55 as the mainline trackage and C40 as the siding trackage...with radically different tie spacing between the the two trackages with different purposes.
I like the logic of using over-scale C55 for the heavily trafficked mainline heavy railed trackage and C40 for medium and lightly trafficked mainline & siding/spur/industrial trackage...so the difference in height can be easily seen in N-scale, as well as the difference of railhead width...then different tie spacings and different weathering add to the contrast between how different tracks of different usage levels can be typically seen...then lastly, different style and type of ballasting, with the lightly traveled siding/spur/industrial trackage sometimes just laid on the dirt, either almost buried, or completely exposed. The exposed trackage with your properly sized ties will look much more prototypical than anything that's presently being injection molded.
I know that a slight taper is one of the most difficult things for a 3D printer to produce properly, but I'm convinced that's what your tie-plates need if possible, and maybe a couple of thousandths less overall height too with sharp 90 degree edges. Is this possible with your printer?? I'd also increase the height of the outside spikeheads about .001" too.
Of course, these suggestions are just my opinions and your tie-strips in their present form will produce C40 track that's better than anything ever produced before in N-scale. I'd like the same in C55 for the rail-height contrast, even though I have a pretty big stash of Rail-Craft C55.
Pretty amazing!!
Cheerio!!
Bob Gilmore
I'm seeing and concurring with just about everything you mentioned. 8) This was the second run after an initial test run to make sure that the basics were there and to start getting a view of how the details would render. I especially think I overshot the tie plate height thing. :)
Some of the more obvious can be corrected but there are some limitations, too. :| Example, the empty spike holes are very small and just tend to fill in (as any tiny hole does (under .010"?). Tough too is when we're looking for crisp 90 degree corners on parts of only a few thousandths size. But there is also some fudging that can be done and at least improvements can be made even if we don't get microscopic perfection. :D This is still a work in progress so keep coming with the critiques. They are helpful.
Two things I was concerned about was overshooting the tie staggering effect on the several with the most extreme offsets and what you already mentioned on the tie plate and rivet heights. I have a plan on what to try with the tie plates but the tie offsets are purely subjective. Any comments on this particular feature will be welcome. And if no consensus or desires would dictate, it would also be possible to make a couple of versions. :|
-
I don't know if this is in any way helpful, but in the UK, as a comparison, this one man industry is producing Code 40 track and turnouts, including concrete. https://www.britishfinescale.com/ (https://www.britishfinescale.com/). Obviously tie spacing and chairs etc. are very different.
There is a very long thread where he has consulted the N Gauge Forum here: https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=3280.0 (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=3280.0)
Simon
-
Sorry to come late to the thread with this, but you can buy plastic code 40 track bases from the UK. Might be with a bulk order an import some?
https://www.britishfinescale.com/product-p/finetrax-flexi-concrete.htm
-
Sorry to come late to the thread with this, but you can buy plastic code 40 track bases from the UK.
But why do that??? When we can print all we need with the Photon and get exactly what we want. It's a hell of lot cheaper.
-
But why do that???
- Easier for longer runs and large layouts
- The plastic used is much more durable and not brittle, especially around the joints to the rail
- Pre-colored
- Soon to be released matching turnouts/switches
I'm all for 3D printing and the results look great! But it's always good to consider all options.
-
- Easier for longer runs and large layouts
- The plastic used is much more durable and not brittle, especially around the joints to the rail
- Pre-colored
- Soon to be released matching turnouts/switches
I'm all for 3D printing and the results look great! But it's always good to consider all options.
But the ones you and Simon mentioned are British, correct?
So the dimensions are different than U.S. standards? Seems that the benefit of these is that they are depicting the U.S. prototype.
-
But the ones you and Simon mentioned are British, correct?
So the dimensions are different than U.S. standards? Seems that the benefit of these is that they are depicting the U.S. prototype.
@Simon D. Thanks for your interest and that link. It's a pretty clever system. You can't help but admire a fellow who is willing to put that much effort into something like that. 8)
The 2mm track product linked above looks like a well thought out system with various benefits, especially to the British modeller. There are many viable options for track that various gauges of wheel sets will roll very nicely on but there are very few if any that will match the US standard detail being pursued in my efforts, all while being relatively easy to work with. That's the sole point of this effort. It started as a need for my own Nn3 projects where track, turnouts, and related items were simply not available. As that came together I found that what I had learned had broader application with unique benefits. That's what's being pursued here. :)
Some of the products I'm developing just aren't available for love nor money, like Nn3 or several variants within a basic track scale, detailed to specifics of the installation like branch track vs: siding track. All of those variants just aren't practical to produce with standard production methods. The real point of my effort is a highly detailed US style track that will withstand pretty close scrutiny and can be produced in short production runs with attention to prototypical detail that just is not available in standard offerings... as well as being relatively easy to work with. As far as robust? It is totally suitable for handling and installing and really bullet proof once installed on a board. Did I say it's pretty easy to work with, too? ;) :D
-
But why do that??? When we can print all we need with the Photon and get exactly what we want. It's a hell of lot cheaper.
Well for one thing not EVERYONE owns a Photon yet . . . .
-
What is the plan for these items. Share the print files?
Share the files for a fee?
-
What is the plan for these items. Share the print files?
Share the files for a fee?
At this time the thought is to sell the tie strips in 8 packs yielding just over 3 feet of track, the lengths that rail is furnished in. Turnouts will likely be furnished RTR. There will be Youtube videos for install instructions. Those may start soon to adequately describe the product and will be a series to fully detail and demonstrate each step. And being this early in the project, all of this is subject to change. ;) :D
As far as ordering goes, at this point I'm not sure what the demand will be for a special product like this and with Youtube videos available for very complete product information, a simple E-mail contact with the required order and shipping information should suffice to get things started and may be as fancy as it ever gets. :) If there is any immediate interest an inquiry would be welcome. Just send me a PM and we'll take it from there. 8)
This venture isn't to have a business (I did that and retired from it) but to share nice, practical, usable products to discerning modellers. The product is the first and only concern, fluff will be at a minimum, and pricing is to cover the costs. 8)
This is still in development so let's give it a chance to see what interest there is before to get too far into the weeds. 8)
-
I've been watching this thread closely and the branchline track looks amazing! The spike detail rendered much better then I thought it would...
I'm definitely up for some to experiment with... Not sure if it's the solution for a whole layout but I'm excited by the possibilities...
-
I've been watching this thread closely and the branchline track looks amazing! The spike detail rendered much better then I thought it would...
I'm definitely up for some to experiment with... Not sure if it's the solution for a whole layout but I'm excited by the possibilities...
Thanks for the encouraging words. :) And once it's seen how easy it is to work with you may be less worried about doing a LOT of it. :D
At this point, in terms of difficulty, I'd say it's a LOT easier than handlaid but slightly more involved than just laying Atlas flex track. I don't think it's so much that it's harder to do but does have a few extra steps. But with it being code 40 with previously unavailable details, all tailored to your specific application, it might very well be worth the little bit of extra effort, especially in highly visible areas. :)
-
All I can say is "Wow", and ask where Tom put the "drool" emoji!
I will definitely be wanting some of the standard gauge wooden ties for both mainline C55 and branch line C40.
-
So how crazy would it be to actually try and get this injection molded? I assume the big cost is machining the tooling.
But something photon-sized for printing would be small enough that maybe it could go on a small machine?
some "yard spacing" would be awesome as well.
-Dave
-
The package with the concrete tie strips from Mark @narrowminded just arrived today, and I have to say, these parts look amazing! I haven't had the chance yet to do anything with them yet, other than grab a few quick pics (next to a bit of M.E. C55 flextrack, of course). Be sure to zoom in on the full-size images:
(https://i.imgur.com/UXLwdCH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sMmNKux.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/cn8bM3m.jpg)
I did notice a very small bit of step aliasing on a few of the sloped surfaces, but this is only noticeable in the close-up pics under a strong cross-light. In-person it is not visible at all, even just inches from my 'ol schnozz ;) (I am also struck at how monstrous the C55 rail looks in the close-ups :facepalm: ).
I'm really looking forward to getting started with the painting and weathering. Many thanks, Mark! You did a great job with these! 8) 8) 8)
Ed
-
Those wood tie strips look really nice! I do have a few comments/questions:
- Overall impression is very good: substantially better than any kind of flextrack available today.
- I like the way the ties are made with the ends offset. I notice tho that the spacing between ties looks rather uniform, compared to the handlaid example that @robert3985 posted. In that pic you can see that the tie spacing varies considerably, and the ties are also not nearly so parallel. (Not a concern for concrete ties, which are very uniform on the prototype.)
- It might be a good idea to install the strips in alternating orientations, to reduce the chance of a 'repeat' pattern emerging.
- Is there any sort of wood grain in the tie tops? Perhaps that could somehow be embossed, or added by hand (X-acto blade, dental pick, hacksaw blade, ...). One would have to be careful not to damage the tieplates & spikes, and not leaving ragged or stranded edges.
- Having tried the Proto:87 tie plates and spikes, I'm very interested to see how these look when painted and weathered. It will have to be done carefully because if the colors are too close then the details will become harder to see.
- It would also be very interesting to see what these look like with the rail installed in individual, 39 scale-foot segments, and with (etched?) fishplates holding the joints together. Might be a bit time-consuming, but that's a look that would be hard to coax out of flex track.
Ed
-
The package with the concrete tie strips from Mark @narrowminded just arrived today, and I have to say, these parts look amazing! I haven't had the chance yet to do anything with them yet, other than grab a few quick pics (next to a bit of M.E. C55 flextrack, of course).
I did notice a very small bit of step aliasing on a few of the sloped surfaces, but this is only noticeable in the close-up pics under a strong cross-light. In-person it is not visible at all, even just inches from my 'ol schnozz ;) (I am also struck at how monstrous the C55 rail looks in the close-ups :facepalm: ).
I'm really looking forward to getting started with the painting and weathering. Many thanks, Mark! You did a great job with these! 8) 8) 8)
Ed
Thanks @ednadolski . I am really glad you like them! 8) Your pictures are sooo much better than mine. ;) I'm anxious to see what you can do with them. 8)
-
@narrowminded
@Simon D. Thanks for your interest and that link. It's a pretty clever system. You can't help but admire a fellow who is willing to put that much effort into something like that.
I posted the info as I thought the comparison between production techniques might be interesting, obviously the product is very different.
I really like your efforts too - all power to your elbow!
Simon
-
@narrowminded, wow these look really really good, especially the varied tie ends! I may have to reconsider using ME flex.
Did you use ACC to attach the rails? Or are they just placed on the ties for the photos?
Frank
-
@narrowminded
I posted the info as I thought the comparison between production techniques might be interesting, obviously the product is very different.
I really like your efforts too - all power to your elbow!
Simon
@Simon D. I really do appreciate the link as there's always something to be learned. That method is very nice and I'm sure it's pretty robust when installation is complete. You can see what I'm attempting to accomplish, low volume yet high detail without being too difficult to work with. Thanks again and wish me luck as this progresses. :)
-
@narrowminded, wow these look really really good, especially the varied tie ends! I may have to reconsider using ME flex.
Did you use ACC to attach the rails? Or are they just placed on the ties for the photos?
Frank
Thanks, @amato1969 .
Those rails are glued in using the tried and true glue for hand laid track, Pliobond 25. The generic description of it would be a rubber contact cement but it seems to be a little more than just any old rubber cement. That brand specifically has proven to be very effective for this service and bonds well to the rail bottom as well as the tie bed (the tie bed takes glue and solvent based or acrylic paints really well). But the biggest reason to use it it is that it remains slightly resilient when cured so can help accommodate small expansion and contraction changes that all installed track experiences in service. CA might be used on some smaller components in the turnouts (yet to be determined) but is not suggested for longer track runs for this reason. This will be more or less important depending on base materials and the climate that the board is exposed to.
Details on the application of this glue, and much more, will be part of the description and instructional videos that will be made as part of the project. We're still in the tweeking part of things, getting the details the best that they can be, but those videos will be made to assure a good experience working with this system.
What will probably be a good idea for those entertaining using this track laying method is to get a few feet for practicing the install methods. A small section, maybe a highly visible siding, would be an excellent choice for this or a small diorama especially just for photographing, where these code 40 track details might really help to show off your latest custom rolling stock project. 8)
-
Mark @narrowminded , I sent you a loooong PM with info concerning the turnout tie-base. Thought you might like it all in one place. Can't wait for the sample to show up on my doorstep!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Thanks to all who are showing interest. 8) I just wanted to let folks know that I'm still mending from my hernia operation and it's really kicked my a$$ so I may be a little slow to get new info for a week or so. It's not for lack of interest. :)
@robert3985 and @ednadolski are involved in advising and reviewing test prints and their contributions are very much appreciated. 8)
-
Hi,
I believe this was asked earlier but didn't catch an answer in the thread - were these 3D printed in Resin or FDM?
-
Hi,
I believe this was asked earlier but didn't catch an answer in the thread - were these 3D printed in Resin or FDM?
I asked earlier but don't recall seeing an answer. But based on some other remarks I'm assuming resin with an Anycubic Photon or equivalent.
-
I asked earlier but don't recall seeing an answer. But based on some other remarks I'm assuming resin with an Anycubic Photon or equivalent.
Yes, Mark "grows" these tie strips in his Anycubic Photon printer.
-
Great, thanks.
Looking at the specs of the Anycubic Photon printer (https://www.anycubic.com/products/anycubic-photon-3d-printer), it would appear these are printed in a vertical orientation?
I'd venture a guess then that the most one could get out of it is 6" in height (length), which might barely fit a #7 turnout.
Has anyone tried printing a FDM turnout tie block?
I recently bought an Ender 5 (which I still have to setup) but have been contemplating feasibility of printing custom turnouts with it.
-
Great, thanks.
Looking at the specs of the Anycubic Photon printer (https://www.anycubic.com/products/anycubic-photon-3d-printer), it would appear these are printed in a vertical orientation?
I'd venture a guess then that the most one could get out of it is 6" in height (length), which might barely fit a #7 turnout.
Reply #39 ( https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=48446.msg643046#msg643046 (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=48446.msg643046#msg643046) ) indicates that he prints tie strips horizontally.
-
I missed that :oops: ...
-
which might barely fit a #7 turnout.
Print them as 2 pieces and glue at the tie separators on each set of tie strips.
Has anyone tried printing a FDM turnout tie block?
I recently bought an Ender 5 (which I still have to setup) but have been contemplating feasibility of printing custom turnouts with it.
I have some #6's, #8's and some #12's around here somewhere that I printed 4 or 5 years ago. I'll see if I can find them and get some pictures for you. I do have pictures of the tie strips that I used on my trestle that were done basically the same way. The PC ties are super glued to recessed ties.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/661/smXKhW.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/idsmXKhWj)
With the code 55 track rail and code 40 gaurdrail soldered to them
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/633/lVKU1W.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/hllVKU1Wj)
On the turnout strips, I have very small nubs that the outside of the rail sat against for rail alignment and still used a gauge to make sure it stayed in gauge. I didn't use any cause I bought a laser cutter and made them with that.
-
Hmm, laser cutter. Did you cut the turnout ties out of polystyrene and how powerful is your laser cutter?
I wish I could buy one cheap here in Canada. The 40 watt laser cutters are over $1,000 on Amazon, and even shipping them from China ends up being that much. :(
-
Hmm, laser cutter. Did you cut the turnout ties out of polystyrene and how powerful is your laser cutter?
I wish I could buy one cheap here in Canada. The 40 watt laser cutters are over $1,000 on Amazon, and even shipping them from China ends up being that much. :(
We had a discussion about laser cutters a while ago. Check out https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=46053.0 (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=46053.0) (despite the subject line). :D
-
Hmm, laser cutter. Did you cut the turnout ties out of polystyrene and how powerful is your laser cutter?
I used .045" plywood as it's within a couple of thousandth of the thickness of ME ties.
I've had my K 40's for several years now, and done a few mods on it. Real power is around 25 watts and mine is almost ready the new tube I bought a while back.
Here's the review I did on it
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=40117.0
-
Thank you, that's just making me want one now even more. ;)
-
An update. It turns out I have a nerve being pinched that passes through the pelvis and is sensory for the upper thigh, causing pins and needles and a constant dull pain, pretty debilitating. It's impossible to concentrate. This only started Sunday night, more than a week after the hernia operation. Hopefully it'll settle down as the hernia swelling settles but if not... :( There may be another surgery in my future. Lucky me to be in a minority. ;) And this was going so well, no problems for a week+ after the surgery. :| Hopefully I'll get back to the track yet this week. Next up is the detail adjustments in the area of the tie plate on the branch line wood tie design. 8)
I'm still checking in on this thread and am really pleased with the way the parts are coming out as well as the general reaction from responders. 8)
-
@narrowminded sorry to hear
healing be your's
and reflief from pain in the meantime
i hope you feel better soon
sincerely
Gary
-
Mark, sorry to hear about your pain... I had something similar with a compressed nerve root a few years back, and I can appreciate how that is no fun! Hang in there bro, hopefully it subsides as the healing progresses.
(Aside: that's the one thing I find remarkable about modern medicine -- the docs can get in there and fix things that would have been a much bigger lift compared to procedures from years ago. The thing is, it tends to make these things *seem* so simple and routine that we start to under-appreciate them, and begin expecting recovery to be a snap. But the body still needs time to heal.)
-
I had parathyroid surgery on 1 october .. the parathyroid that was bad had grown to the size of a lima bean, and wrapped around the nerve that controlled my vocal chords .. for 2 months, I could barely speak .. in late November, practically overnight, things healed itself and I was able to speak again normally .. I wish you the best ..
-
Thanks for the sympathetic thoughts, all. 8) I had a visit with a good doctor today and already have hopes that I will be on the mend and the immediate debilitating level of pain will be relieved as soon as tomorrow. It seems that, after in office inspection by an expert, the issue is related to the hernia surgery but only indirectly and the nerve disturbance is actually in the lower back with an inflammation aggravated by the pressures applied from strange pressure and favored muscle use instigated by the surgery but not a direct cause. Especially because I have had no history of back issues, this issue should respond well to medication over the next week and through the next 2 months. Here's hoping! Sooo, maybe tomorrow can bring some progress on the revised wooden tie plate adjustments. 8)
-
Program edited and next run is in the printer! Looking for a little thinner tie plate edge and little higher spike details. The rest seemed pretty good. 8) A few hours and we'll see how we're doing. :)
Feeling much better by noon today. Not 100% nor should it be but also not so debilitating that I can't sit at the computer and work on drawings. It's better than I could hope for. 8)
-
Edited batch, printed, and first eight cured. I think we have a winner! 8)
I'll put some rail and a quick paint job on a piece and try to get a decent pic. I'll get siding track in next and should have the first of that ready tonight, too.
I'm really happy with the way this is coming out. :)
-
If you are up to doing this printing means you are healing. And keeping the spirit up this way will speed the recovery for sure. :D
-
@robert3985 ... and code 40 siding ties are in the printer. 8)
Because they are largely edits to proven parts they should be good to go, first try. The two changes are 24" spacing for siding ties vs: 22" for branch ties and only two gage spikes per rail, one inside and one outside, staggered positions per UP spiking pattern spec 1B. If these print properly I'll have samples of both ready to send this weekend. 8) Pics later or by tomorrow.
I'm all smiles over here. :) :D
-
If you are up to doing this printing means you are healing. And keeping the spirit up this way will speed the recovery for sure. :D
Thanks. Doing pretty good, all considered. :) And from where I started just late yesterday, it's amazing! 8)
-
OK! Now available, highly detailed Code 40 flex Branch Line Ties and Siding Ties. 8)
Pics maybe tomorrow. Shop's closed for the night. ;) :D
-
OK! Now available, highly detailed Code 40 flex Branch Line Ties and Siding Ties. 8)
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/408-221219170825.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=13960)
-
Here are some pics of a ballasted-up strip of the printed concrete ties. I have to say I am really impressed with how these look and work! Thanks and again, @narrowminded !
A few thoughts on the samples:
- The pics include a section of ME C55 (nonweathered) flextrack, for comparison of appearance with equal treatment.
- All rail and clips were painted with Model Master Railroad Tie Brown.
- The tie strips were painted with MM Camoflage Gray from the rattle can. The ME ties are their native molded color, which differs significantly (but not too bad). (I'm not settled on either one as a color that I like for a project, but that's subjective anyway.)
- Ballast is N-Scale AZRM #138-1 CSX/SP, fine-screened to get rid of the fine powdery portions. I'm not really sold on this color either, as it looks too light to my eye and doesn't have enough contrast (at least for the proto I have in mind). I only used this (and the spray paint) because that's what I had on hand.
- I just glued the rail in place with CA, again as that's what I had on hand and it's sufficient for a sample. Pliobond (or any glue) will get trickier to handle on longer lengths of rail.
- I installed the rail and painted it before doing the ballast. This took more effort to get the ballast shaped/groomed properly than without the rail already in place. OTOH, ballasting without the rail in place would still have to be done carefully to keep grains of ballast out from between the clips where the rail will be installed.
- I did not weather the sample, to avoid obscuring the details.
- I did not need any track gauges to set the distance between rails, tho some would probably be handy for working with longer lengths of rail.
- These are just cell phone pics, so they are not the greatest.
A few more thoughts on the strips:
- I notice the ties have more of a prototypical and "finescale" look compared to the ME ties which have a more chunky/coarse look.
- Even more than the ties, the difference in the size of the rail clips is even more apparent (and the rail of course speaks for itself).
- As I mentioned previously, the step aliasing while noticeable in some pics it is very hard to see in-person without magnification and strong light.
- It would be great if these could be molded in a prototype concrete color, to save the separate painting step.
- The webbing between ties should be on alternating ties, as it is too much time & work to have to clip it off between each and every tie on all curves. The double-webbing actually isn't much help either for tangent track: since the strips are only about 4" long it still is necessary to align the strips with a straightedge.
- The webbing should be a little lower, to make it easier to bury with ballast. Regardless, the webbing is a *huge* improvement over the webbing on the ME track (which is impossible to hide with ballast without making the ballast higher than the rail base).
Anyways here are the pics:
(https://i.imgur.com/f3P5y55.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/67OFbYV.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/bTfnSpy.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/7gMqjmu.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/cfzg8hj.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/XIfH905.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/MZ0WkGq.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/9XI1bRt.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/esoPPbV.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/iUsOBcD.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZmQzG9g.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/1YGXKHY.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/PbhfVs2.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/fy38FCb.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/j5eVumo.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/CWTrhId.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y95FnvT.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/lEkCTvI.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q2EMpXt.jpg?1)
Looking forward to hearing thoughts and feedback from everyone ;)
Ed
-
Ed, the code 40 track looks *REALLY* good! You guys are done some fantastic work!
The the individually painted rail clips make big difference for realistic appearance, contrasting with the concrete tie, but I suspect that is a tedious task.
How about 3D printing a thin form-fitting mask to put over the tie strip with openings over the rail clips? Then you could airbrush the rail clips on the entire tie strip with just couple of passes of an airbrush. And of course the mask can be used over and over again.
-
@ednadolski Ed, great review! Too bad I have no use for concrete ties! :D
Finally we're getting to the point that the difference between the level of car/engine detailing vs track detailing is pretty damned small! Now we need some real N-scale NS rail...code 35 to start with???
Can't wait for the wooden tie strips to show up!!
@narrowminded Mark...continue getting better!
Cheerio!!
Bob Gilmore
-
Maybe a laser cut stencil would be better than 3D printed one. Using some thinner (cheaper) polystyrene, so once it gets all gunked up with paint you can toss it out and cut another one.
Hmm, come to think of it if I had a laser cutter I'd make one for ME C55 rail.
How about 3D printing a thin form-fitting mask to put over the tie strip with openings over the rail clips? Then you could airbrush the rail clips on the entire tie strip with just couple of passes of an airbrush. And of course the mask can be used over and over again.
-
WOW, a lot happening! All good. :) @ednadolski I love what you did with that tie bed! 8) Looks like we might have some things to talk about. :) Thanks so much for getting this stuff started. It's been on my to do list (not concrete but this style of tie bed) for a while now, ever since I worked this method out for my Nn3 projects. The plan has been to do a complete line of highly detailed ties for N, Nn3, Z, and HOn30. Well, this got it started. :)
Here are some promised pics of the code 40 branch ties with the latest edits and the first of the Siding ties. They have been given a quick coat of Krylon Camo Brown and on the branch ties, some quick, crudely executed, brushing of the tie plates with some MM Rust Acrylic on the still tacky Camo. :facepalm: It's a total rush job and I'm sure can and will be better with experience. (Actually, I'll wait to see what I can copy from the experienced when they get their hands on it. @robert3985 ) ;) I also colored the rail with Neo-lube. I think I like rail brown better but again, something I need to work on. I'll be better off to wait and see what the experts do with it!
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
This is the Siding Track. It's basically just a change to the tie spacing and lighter spike application, one on each side of the rail per UP spec 1B. That spec sheet was posted earlier in the thread by Robert. 8) The ties are painted with the same Krylon Camo brown but nothing done to the tie plates or the rail.
[attachimg=3]
And here's a photo of the two side by side showing the difference.
[attachimg=4]
I'll try to digest and fill stuff in a bit tomorrow. Thanks to all for your interest. :) This is being fun! 8)
-
WOW, a lot happening! All good. :) ...
...I'll try to digest and fill stuff in a bit tomorrow. Thanks to all for your interest. :) This is being fun! 8)
@narrowminded Mark, I haven't been this excited during the Christmas season since I was a kid! N-scale's been waiting a LONG time for these track products! This is going to kick my butt to finish the track plan on my Devils Slide siding and Ideal Concrete spur to use these there. :)
Merry Christmas!!
Bob Gilmore
-
The the individually painted rail clips make big difference for realistic appearance, contrasting with the concrete tie, but I suspect that is a tedious task.
Not any worse than flextrack, it's just a matter of following the rail with the tip of a sable brush, and don't let the paint get too runny. ;)
To me the most tedious part is trying to cover up the webbing on the flextrack with ballast, yet still keeping it off of the clips. The tiny grains are hard to control, and the result still basically looks like a hillbilly grin. (The webbing is way oversized for what it does, but I suspect that's an outcome of ME's re-working the mold a while back.)
For the strips I'm thinking of some kind of pad or block 'printing' to apply paint or ink to all the clips on a strip at once. I have to learn more about inks, linoleum pads, etc.
Ed
-
Not any worse than flextrack, it's just a matter of following the rail with the tip of a sable brush, and don't let the paint get too runny. ;)
For the strips I'm thinking of some kind of pad or block 'printing' to apply paint or ink to all the clips on a strip at once. I have to learn more about inks, linoleum pads, etc.
Ed
@ednadolski I was thinking along the same lines. I suspect ink might be the better choice for the fine details, a thinner consistency to not hide detail. Something along the order of a Sharpie with a small, flatter tip. Also a better ink for colorfastness. Maybe there's a fillable device like this that can be filled with your own mixture or maybe just making an applicator that uses the replaceable tips available for existing paint/ ink pens. This will be investigated. :)
That mini test scene you displayed with your fabulously weathered and detailed car makes for an exquisite display! I see what you were after and why this refined track look was so important to you. Just amazing. 8)
-
Not any worse than flextrack, it's just a matter of following the rail with the tip of a sable brush, and don't let the paint get too runny. ;)
For the strips I'm thinking of some kind of pad or block 'printing' to apply paint or ink to all the clips on a strip at once. I have to learn more about inks, linoleum pads, etc.
Ed
I just thought that placing an exact-fitting mask over the tie strip and then shooting couple of spritzes of paint from an airbrush (then repeating this process with more tie strips). would be much easier and quicker. But if you don't mind painting each individual set of clips, the more power to you. :) It is not bad when you just have to do couple of strips, but if you have to paint 100 or more strips (for the main line on a layout), painting each individual set of clips seems a bit tedious.
-
I just thought that placing an exact-fitting mask over the tie strip and then shooting couple of spritzes of paint from an airbrush (then repeating this process with more tie strips). would be much easier and quicker. But if you don't mind painting each individual set of clips, the more power to you. :) It is not bad when you just have to do couple of strips, but if you have to paint 100 or more strips (for the main line on a layout), painting each individual set of clips seems a bit tedious.
I love the idea but I'm not sure it can be made to work readily on these details. The height is only about .003"/ .005" so the mask would have to be approximately that thin. Then it might have to follow the spacing and angular changes in curves. :facepalm: That's also assuming folks will take the time to add a different color to all of those tie plates instead of just leaving them the same as the tie color. It's a nice option to be able to see and detail them for highly detailed scenes and extreme closeup photographs but folks have made it this far without it. ;)
With that said, I got an idea tonight so tried something that looks like it may work well for painting the tie plate details and might even be a neat trick for other detail applications. I took a fine paint nib out of a paint pen, ground the tip to a small chisel type point with a sander in a die grinder, placed the nib in my pin vise to act as a handle, and used Model Master acrylic diluted with air brush thinner as the paint, just dipping it in as I would a brush and blotting any excess on a paper scrap. With the opti-visor in place and some decent light it was easy to get just enough paint on just the plate, moving right along, plate after plate with an occasional stop to reload. :) And when there was an error all it took was a blot with a paper towel and hit it again.
I kept some fresh thinner to give the tip a dip and paper towel blot if it started drying a little, getting thicker on the nib point than I liked. And with the way paint naturally shrinks at it dries and with this thinned and not over applied with the chisel pointed nib, it helps to retain the fine detail... I think. ;) I'll check it tomorrow and see how it's doing but so far it's got very good promise. It also allows you to use the full range of colors you have for everything else, not stuck with the color palette of the pen manufacturer and his wonderfully shiny paint. ;) (I already see uses for this elsewhere even if it doesn't work here.) 8)
Cleanup of the nib was with acetone. It cleans it out, ready for another use. And in case you don't already have some, get some. :) Very handy stuff around modelling. It's the solvent/ reducer for Pliobond and CA and it does not effect the tie material. I use it to clean up any tools, syringes, tweezers, clogged CA bottle tips and lids that won't go back on, or for any dry acrylic paint removal on metal, delrin, or this resin (not on styrene or ABS). Yes, the tie bed material is resistant to acetone and MEK! How convenient. :) If it's not already in your bag of tricks it'll become a must have for this work and much more. Just keep it away from your styrene or ABS unless, of course, you want to glue it. ;)
BTW, MEK and acetone are very similar in their makeup and for practical purposes in our modelling they can be treated as the same thing with the primary difference being one is faster drying than the other. Both are pretty fast but the acetone is the measurably faster drying of the two. 8)
-
Mark, my mask idea was for painting the tie strip before installing it on the layout (and even before installing the track). The tie strip would still be straight and track-less. I imagine the tie strip would be painted the concrete color first. Then mask placed over it, and then a quick spritz of rusty brown paint to give the rail clips some color. Rinse and repeat for the next tie strip.
The mask wouldn't have to be all that thin, as long as the opening for the paint is shaped like upside down pyramid. It was just a simple idea,
-
Has @GaryHinshaw seen this?
-
Have you given any though to manufacturing/distributing/pricing for this?
-
Mark, my mask idea was for painting the tie strip before installing it on the layout (and even before installing the track). The tie strip would still be straight and track-less. I imagine the tie strip would be painted the concrete color first. Then mask placed over it, and then a quick spritz of rusty brown paint to give the rail clips some color. Rinse and repeat for the next tie strip.
The mask wouldn't have to be all that thin, as long as the opening for the paint is shaped like upside down pyramid. It was just a simple idea,
I do think painting the tie bed and rail before to lay it has merit for those going for high detail unless it's a pretty small module that is easy to work on the bench. As far as the mask, it may work and would have the best chance if done on the bench before to lay.
Here's a pic of the first try at painting the tie plates with the nib. The piece was a test piece already sprayed bombed with Krylon Camo Brown and has a scrap of rail just set in place on one side only. It's not the best it could be and the tie plate color is MM Rust applied with the nib with the dressed tip. It could be a different shade but I think it demos that the plate paint can be applied with pretty good accuracy. With some dry brushing and weathering I think it could be made to be pretty accurate looking stuff. The pencil is there as a reminder of how ridiculously oversized the picture is, maybe too much so to represent even modelled track. :)
[attach=1]
So far this work that started some months ago has been well worth it. To me, the viability of the method is totally proven. It really works well and mechanically holds the rail gauge dimension very accurately. 8) What may still be warrented is some tweeking of dimensions for the best cosmetic representation of real track and the proper balance between seeing it with the naked eye and then under closeup photography. I won't be surprised as the experts get it in hand that they may want to make some adjustments in that area. This window of adjustment if needed at all, will be very minor, in the few thousandths inch range. Making two different versions could also be an option, super fine detail and runner detail. :| My main areas of concern are the spike height and width, and plate height, and possibly being too small, not too big, with the rest being good as is... I think. ;) :D We'll let the experts weigh in on that before to call it final. :)
And again, to all, thanks for your interest. 8)
-
Have you given any though to manufacturing/distributing/pricing for this?
Yes, I have. It's very early in the whole effort and so I'm reluctant to say just yet (it's hard to change that once out there) ;) but what my first independent deliberations came up with are very much in line with what hand laid tie bed from one of the major suppliers of hand laid track supplies would cost. It was slightly favorable, not more, and that was only discovered several days later when it occurred to me to compare the price per foot of each. 8)
First thoughts are that they will be packaged in 8 piece bundles yielding 3'+ of track, the same length that ME rail comes in. That seems logical and practical to me.
As far as using distributors, at least while getting this off the ground and flushing out some other product lines that I've been working on, I expect that I will furnish the material directly and that may be as fancy as it ever gets. I'm not expecting huge volume for this and doubtful that there's room in it for distributor markups that would be sufficient to make it viable for them, and specialty enough that the masses won't be the customer for it from both the install skills as well as the extra effort to complete an installation. I will let things take their natural course as far as where this goes down the road.
Edit add: OK, I'll throw this out there but please do not take it as final. I expect that the 8 packs will be $10. That is definitely not final. :)
-
I do think painting the tie bed and rail before to lay it has merit for those going for high detail unless it's a pretty small module that is easy to work on the bench. As far as the mask, it may work and would have the best chance if done on the bench before to lay.
Mark, I think that my point has been missed. I was specifically talking about concrete ties, where you are showing wooden ties. To me painting concrete ties before installing the rail seems like the only reasonable construction method, since the concrete color and the color of the rail/rail-clips is quite different. Again, that's just me. My suggestion has been made after I saw Ed's examples of his finished track.
-
I imagine the tie strip would be painted the concrete color first. Then mask placed over it, and then a quick spritz of rusty brown paint to give the rail clips some color. Rinse and repeat for the next tie strip.
One concerns wrt a mask is avoiding the paint bleed-thru.
In the past I've used the WS paint pens to paint the tie clips on the flextrack by just running the tip along the rail and lightly touching along the tops of the clips. It goes fairly quickly once you get going (despite that the WS pens themselves are rather coarse and somewhat spotty, and occasionally will spit blobs). There are 'real' artist paint pens that give better control (and more color choices) which I intend to try.
One point about pre-painting the tie strips is getting paint in between the guides where the rail gets glued down. As Mark mentioned, you can mask it with square styrene or such, but I'm thinking I'd rather avoid the problem and airbrush the ties after the rail is installed. (Airbrushing has other benefits, i.e., custom colors, and avoids nasty spray can smells that take forever to subside).
It's a new process, so part of the fun is figuring out the different ways to do it ;)
Ed
-
One concerns wrt a mask is avoiding the paint bleed-thru.
Unless you are applying really wet coat with an airbrush, that should not be a problem, especially with a 3D printed or laser cut mask. But again, it was just a suggestion.
-
Has @GaryHinshaw seen this?
Yes, this is a very cool development! I haven't had too much feedback on the concrete tie project because 95% of my track in permanently installed, and I ain't going back to redo it... But 3 cheers for the effort! I will offer a few comments based on my experience:
* I love the look of the finer ties and code 40 rail head, but I'm a little concerned about the printing striations. Perhaps it's completely innocuous in person, but it does rather stand out in Ed's photos.
* I wish there was something like a code 46 (or so) rail with a finer head, so that we could have some contrast between mainline and branch/siding rail. (And code 35 for the latter would be awesome - but neither is likely to appear in my modelling lifetime.)
* I'm totally fine with painting the rail clips individually. It takes me less time than ballasting. A mask might work, but I could easily imagine that the over-spray would be harder to clean up than the occasional stray brush stroke would be.
* To me, ballast makes or breaks the track illusion more than anything else. Here are a few (repeat) shots of my ME track with Smith & Sons Penn/Ohio #50 limestone, still unweathered: (Ed, I agree you need a darker ballast)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1929/45458525532_1c0b72b9b6_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2cg1PTA)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1901/43690982770_809159da6c_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/29yPH1o)
The chunky ties and oversize rail are pretty obvious up close, but then note that even the fine tread FVM wheels (on the right-hand car) are wider than the C55 railhead, so compromises abound, as always.
Anyway, I don't mean to be negative at all -- it's a really great project! And I'm quite interested in the wood tie developments, because I still have all of my industrial track to lay. My current plans are to use ME code 40 flex, but these tie strips might convince me to switch.
But the biggest need of all is code 40 turnout parts! (Especially a robust throw-bar design.) Then, you will have my undivided attention!! :lol:
-gfh
-
Here are a few (repeat) shots of my ME track with Smith & Sons Penn/Ohio #50 limestone, still unweathered: (Ed, I agree you need a darker ballast)
@GaryHinshaw I wish I could find that ballast somewhere anywhere! I thought it had transmogrified into the Scenic Express and I have some of that (maybe Light Gray...? I don't recall the name offhand), but it still doesn't look like what you've got there.
I'm also very envious at how neatly you've applied the ballast! Any chance you could be persuaded to post a (quick & informal) video? (some things have to be seen, and are not easily conveyed by words). ;)
Ed
-
Ed, there may be hope yet. One of our members posted that Harley Smith's grandson Paul has taken on the business:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=46799.msg613703#msg613703
That was less than a year ago, so I'm hopeful it's still going. I'll see what I can do about a video, but I'm afraid it might scare more folks away from the hobby than it would attract. ;)
-
Here is an idea:
Make the tie plates a symmetrical extrusion (rectangular section) that extends into a perfectly sized hole in the concrete tie. Print a massive array of tie plates that can be airburshed with different colors. Break them all off their respective sprues, put them in a bowl and mix them up for random selection.
Paint the concrete color on the tie strips. Insert the rail plates into the holes for a completely random colorization, and glue the tie strips following the intended centerlines (BTW, a small upside down V notch in the bottom of each tie would be helpful for that, and would be hidden by ballast) then glue down pre-weathered rail.
-
Here is an idea:
Make the tie plates a symmetrical extrusion (rectangular section) that extends into a perfectly sized hole in the concrete tie. Print a massive array of tie plates that can be airburshed with different colors. Break them all off their respective sprues, put them in a bowl and mix them up for random selection.
Paint the concrete color on the tie strips. Insert the rail plates into the holes for a completely random colorization, and glue the tie strips following the intended centerlines (BTW, a small upside down V notch in the bottom of each tie would be helpful for that, and would be hidden by ballast) then glue down pre-weathered rail.
IDK sounds like more effort than just painting the clips individually.
-
Here is an idea:
Make the tie plates a symmetrical extrusion (rectangular section) that extends into a perfectly sized hole in the concrete tie. Print a massive array of tie plates that can be airburshed with different colors. Break them all off their respective sprues, put them in a bowl and mix them up for random selection.
Paint the concrete color on the tie strips. Insert the rail plates into the holes for a completely random colorization, and glue the tie strips following the intended centerlines (BTW, a small upside down V notch in the bottom of each tie would be helpful for that, and would be hidden by ballast) then glue down pre-weathered rail.
Maybe it is me who is missing the point. Here is Ed's finished concrete rail:
(https://i.imgur.com/cfzg8hj.jpg?1)
The rail clips do not seem to show any color variation. To be honest, as I see it, the rail and rail clips are generally uniformly rusted (colored). Besides, the clips are so tiny that if some were colored dry rust, and others greasy rust, they are too small to really see the color difference. I also do not understand the fear of overspray or bleed through. with tight fitting mask and light spray from an airbrush, I just don't see how that would be a problem. To me it would be easier and quicker to use mask (especially when dozens o strips are to be done) to do each tie strip in a single operation, than to paint each rail clip separately. Maybe I am not explaining well enough how that mask would look. :|
-
Pandrol clips are not really like ties plates at all, as you can see in the shot that Ed posted earlier (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=48446.msg642699#msg642699). They are semi-oval shaped clips that fasten to a base that is cast into the tie and they wrap around the rail base. Here's a good view of their distinctive profile, which also shows how relatively tall they are, compared to a tie plate/spike combo:
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/560615/
It would be really cool if that undercut profile could be captured. It would also make them easier to paint, because there would be very little contact area between the clip and the tie. ;) Might be too much of a printing challenge though.
-
The rail clips do not seem to show any color variation. To be honest, as I see it, the rail and rail clips are generally uniformly rusted (colored). Besides, the clips are so tiny that if some were colored dry rust, and others greasy rust, they are too small to really see the color difference. I also do not understand the fear of overspray or bleed through. with tight fitting mask and light spray from an airbrush, I just don't see how that would be a problem. To me it would be easier and quicker to use mask (especially when dozens o strips are to be done) to do each tie strip in a single operation, than to paint each rail clip separately. Maybe I am not explaining well enough how that mask would look. :|
Anybody considered something simple like basswood or styrene in an L shape, supported and partially masked with tie space sized Triangle supports? Or is there some big flaw with that that I'm overlooking.
-
Here is a very rough and simplified sketch of my mask idea.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/13/2700-241219190254-139762359.jpeg)
The mask would be 3D printed. The underside of the mask would be simple like female mold for the tops of the ties. The paint openings would be larger at the top and exact size of the rail clips on the bottom (upside-down pyramid shaped openings).
The mask is then placed over the concrete-painted ties and then rust color sprayed over the openings. That's all. The concrete tie is left unpainted, and the clips are now rusty. Single operation - no fussing over every clip.
-
Ed, there may be hope yet. One of our members posted that Harley Smith's grandson Paul has taken on the business:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=46799.msg613703#msg613703
Great! I will definitely check that out. Thanks! 8) 8) 8)
... I'm afraid it might scare more folks away from the hobby than it would attract. ;)
Sorry, not buyin' it. Just point 'em at Tehachapi, BC ;)
Make the tie plates a symmetrical extrusion (rectangular section) that extends into a perfectly sized hole in the concrete tie.
Sounds more like a job for the photo etcher ;) But don't under-estimate how tiny those individual N-scale Code 40 tieplates actually are, or how tricky they are to handle. :o
The rail clips do not seem to show any color variation. To be honest, as I see it, the rail and rail clips are generally uniformly rusted (colored).
The base color of new clips is a sort of reddish-brown, burnt sienna color:
https://doublebhomestead.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/p1020188.jpg
As they age they accumulate all manner of dirt/dust/grease/grime and mostly tend toward a sort of burnt umber color -- quite uniform as you rightly point out. The surrounding ties/rail/ballast also tend get covered with a sort of dull gray/grime color. You can see the difference in the pic that I posted, the foreground track is a low-traffic passing siding, and the second track is the mainline that handles all the heavy traffic:
https://i.imgur.com/XUEyeMa.jpg
I'm thinking to try airbrushing the gray/grime. I've tried powders but they are very slow and I was never happy with the results.
I also do not understand the fear of overspray or bleed through. with tight fitting mask and light spray from an airbrush, I just don't see how that would be a problem.
Think of how important it is to burnish the edges of masking tape to get a good line between two colors. Airbrushing forces an atomized spray of a low viscosity fluid under positive pressure against every part of that edge, seeking out every last imperfection. A mechanical mask would have be fit (nearly) perfectly, on every application, to keep the paint where you want it, and only where you want it.
Pandrol clips are not really like ties plates at all
There are several kinds of Pandrol clips: https://www.pandrolusa.com/product/. The ones on Tehachapi are the Safelok I. Not sure which ones the ME flex is supposed to represent.
The paint openings would be larger at the top and exact size of the rail clips on the bottom (upside-down pyramid shaped openings).
Do you really mean zero tolerance? I don't think you could get that with any kind of 3D printing, etching, machining, or otherwise.
You're also predicating that the ties & clips themselves all print out with exactly zero variance.
Ed
-
Well, with a 3D printed mask (designed and printed by the same person who designed the tie strips), the tolerances can be quite close. Not zero, but close enough. I usually don't use anything over 20 psi in my airbrush (usually 12 or 15) for small objects. Sometimes even lower. There wouldn't be much overspray at that pressure.
Most model manufacturers successfully use tight-fitting masks when doing multi-colored shells. Just look at any multi-color MTL car (before they moved to ink-jet decorating. I was just looking to make the painting less tedious (especially in larger quantity). But if someone enjoys dabbing paint onto hundreds (or thousands) of little dimples, that's ok too. I would rather be using that time for hand-laying a C40 switch. :D
Oh well . . .
-
I was just looking to make the painting less tedious (especially in larger quantity).
Yes of course. It's all pieces of the larger picture, and like so much else there is no single 'right' way to do something. Painting clips and/or tieplates is basically the same for either flextrack or hand-built track (I consider the tie strips as part of the latter). Maybe tie strips can add a new way or two, depending on what one finds 'tedious' and what lengths one is willing to go to 'save effort'. I think that I agree with @GaryHinshaw, that brush-painting clips isn't all that bad, and shaping ballast by hand is a lot more time-consuming. That was my experience with flextrack as well as with this tie strip sample. I'm trying to figure out some sort of tool (brush? template? functional scale Jordan spreader...?) that would help improve that.
Na dzrowie and Happy Christmas!
Ed
-
Na dzrowie and Happy Christmas!
Ed
And the same for you and yours. :)
-
Here are some pics of a ballasted-up strip of the printed concrete ties. I have to say I am really impressed with how these look and work! Thanks and again, @narrowminded !
And thank you Ed, for supplying the inspiration and taking the time to try it out and offer your advice. I really like what you did with it. 8)
I'm sorry I've taken so much time to digest this review and see what things might need attention. But here goes...
- I just glued the rail in place with CA, again as that's what I had on hand and it's sufficient for a sample. Pliobond (or any glue) will get trickier to handle on longer lengths of rail.
As we discussed, this tie material takes paint and glue well and CA will definitely attach the rail to the ties. The main thinking behind using Pliobond as the preferred method is for expansion and contraction, affording some resiliency in the joint. Pliobond with strategically placed expansion joints is a tried and proven method for reliable attachment of hand laid rail to ties. If the environment is known to be stable in temperature and humidity I suspect CA will hold up fine over the long haul too but just one extreme excursion from that and the potential for trouble exists and not just with this method but with any track work.
To that end I'm still experimenting with several methods for applying the glue to the joint. I may be on to a little low cost tool to aid in this. It would be useful for this tie bed but also for any hand laying effort requiring Pliobond application.
- I did not need any track gauges to set the distance between rails, tho some would probably be handy for working with longer lengths of rail.
That is one of the main features that started this concept for me. Lay it in, done, and accurate to the target, with any rare excursion from that target not exceeding a couple of thousandths. The follow on ability to make many variants within a basic scale and to add prototypical appearance details, all while producing in short quantities at a reasonable cost, was the icing on the cake.
- These are just cell phone pics, so they are not the greatest.
They look pretty outstanding to me, especially with the detailed box car. 8) And everybody's seen mine :facepalm: so I'll bow out at this point. :D
A few more thoughts on the strips:
- I notice the ties have more of a prototypical and "finescale" look compared to the ME ties which have a more chunky/coarse look.
- Even more than the ties, the difference in the size of the rail clips is even more apparent (and the rail of course speaks for itself).
- As I mentioned previously, the step aliasing while noticeable in some pics it is very hard to see in-person without magnification and strong ligh
This is all good news to me as it describes the whole endeavor in a nutshell. :) And if there was any need they could be adjusted but they are mostly made to a common style and this one is accurately depicting an LB Foster prototype tie. Unfortunately the aliasing lines are the nature of the process but as described, they are not very noticeable, especially to the naked eye, and if there was a specific spot that was to be used for detailed photos they could be sanded out if really necessary. The material sands well. Fortunately this is not an issue on the wooden ties with their totally flat faces.
- It would be great if these could be molded in a prototype concrete color, to save the separate painting step.
Yes, that would be nice but... the process won't allow a fully opaque color as it needs to allow light to shine through to cure the resin as it's being built up. And once the part is complete, the resin has a certain sheen which won't be acceptable so we would still need to do something to dull it. With these things in mind it seems that we're going to be applying a finish at some point so it might as well be the very flat color of our choice. :| That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;) :D
- The webbing between ties should be on alternating ties, as it is too much time & work to have to clip it off between each and every tie on all curves. The double-webbing actually isn't much help either for tangent track: since the strips are only about 4" long it still is necessary to align the strips with a straightedge.
I know that's a common way to do this with the existing flex tie products and it works well. It's such a common method that my first trials with this material were reflexively designed that way. BUT... (bear with me) ;) this material is not inherently flexible the way that the typical tie bed material is so the ability to flex is accomplished in part by keeping those bridging features pretty thin (.020"?), allowing them to be quite flexible without breaking. (I have curved 1 1/2"R testing this.) :o But that flexibility without the double bridging will also leave the bed pretty floppy until it's finally glued down. That makes handling at all times, until finally installed, more awkward than necessary and if the single bridges are staggered from side to side it invites angled stepping on straights from easily compressing or stretching the strip. Once I added the second guide all handling became much easier even though the typical straightedge was still needed on long straight runs. Also, keep in mind that flex track has two metal rails in place adding rigidity to the free standing sections. Even with the rails it still moves around pretty readily. In this approach we don't have the rails to help support things.
As far as the length goes, they are just over 4 1/2" as made but if you have a long section to run, straight or curved, the strips can be glued together and handled as one. The way they are made, the one end starts with the flat tie face, no bridge piece projecting. The other end has the last two bridge pieces projecting from the tie at full length. Butting those pieces together sets the accurate spacing whether glued or just butted in place. If there was a desire to have them joined as one longer piece (I've done both, glued and just butted in place) do it on the bench and use a piece of rail placed in one side of the guides to assure alignment of the two tie strips. A very small drop of CA applied with a toothpick on both bridge projections and then slide them together, butted. Then you can just proceed using the strip as one continuous piece.
This is also how you lay it without joining the strips together ahead of time. Spread your tie bed glue on the board (I use Tite-bond II), place the tie bed, eyeballed in place and butted together, and then, for alignment, set a piece of rail into either the right or left set of guides to sight along as well as to assure bed to bed guide alignment. The wood glue affords decent working time to get this done without too much pressure to rush the job. And if it later needs some adjusting, adding a little water will soften it up and let you rework as needed. I found this step to be little different than laying flex track.
As far as cutting the bridges, have you actually tried flexing a curve with this yet? I suspect you're approaching it as though those bridge pieces need to be completely removed and, especially if working with a saw or cut-off wheel, that would be tedious. Also, for ease of alignment through the curve I snip every other tie, not every tie. I am using a pair of Xuron Sprue Cutters (just like your rail nippers but a thinner nose) and just one snip on every other tie bridge piece on the outer side of the curve, leaving the tie bridge piece in place, just snipped. I shoulder the nippers against one tie, snip and done. Skip a tie, repeat. ;)
Here's also where the thin profile of the bridge piece has a second benefit as it is so narrow that the remaining piece is still well nested under the rail foot so easily remains hidden even on more severe curves. It's exactly what's done on my 2 1/2" radius curves on my first install on my Nn3 test track and once ballasted the bridge pieces don't show at all. 8)
- The webbing should be a little lower, to make it easier to bury with ballast. Regardless, the webbing is a *huge* improvement over the webbing on the ME track (which is impossible to hide with ballast without making the ballast higher than the rail base).
Hmmm, I hear you. I saw that the ballast with the concrete ties seems to be a little lower than with wood ties and is why I lowered it at all, as you received it. Your suggestion is to lower it more, I guess. That can be done easily. I actually left the bridge piece full height on the wooden tie bed figuring the ballast typically comes up pretty near the rails on that and with the bridge pretty well nested it won't/ hasn't shown. And maybe I'm over ballasting. :| Hmmm
The extra gluing surface seemed like good free insurance of a solid attachment (it's there, use it) but it is also a bit of a belt and suspenders approach where only one is really needed. This will be investigated further. :|
Anyways here are the pics:
I know there are many and no need to post them all again but I had to leave at least this one. That boxcar! I love it! :D
(https://i.imgur.com/lEkCTvI.jpg?1)
Looking forward to hearing thoughts and feedback from everyone ;)
Me too. :D
And thanks again, Ed. This is very helpful.
Happy Holidays, all! :)
-
@narrowminded Mark, I got home 15 minutes ago (8:00PM MST) and checked my mailbox. Santa left me a package! Your wooden tie samples have arrived and I will unpack and start reviewing tomorrow.
First impression without unwrapping the clear plastic container is how incredibly small the details on these ties are!! I've observed with Optivisors as close as they will allow me, and I am extremely impressed with what I'm seeing!
More impressions as well as photos sometime tomorrow...probably in the late afternoon MST from Utah.
WOW!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
@narrowminded Mark, I got home 15 minutes ago (8:00PM MST) and checked my mailbox. Santa left me a package! Your wooden tie samples have arrived and I will unpack and start reviewing tomorrow.
First impression without unwrapping the clear plastic container is how incredibly small the details on these ties are!! I've observed with Optivisors as close as they will allow me, and I am extremely impressed with what I'm seeing!
More impressions as well as photos sometime tomorrow...probably in the late afternoon MST from Utah.
WOW!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
I didn't think they'd arrive so quickly. Anxious to hear what you come up with. :)
-
I am presently working on a transition strip from code 55 to code 40. It holds the rails' inside edges (gauge) in alignment to each other and over several ties it tapers the code 40 rail height down to the original base level. This is still working from the position of no use of non-prototypical rail joiners.
The bed holds the alignment and feeders soldered to the bottom of the rail supplies the power. No unsightly joiners, no soldering to hold alignment in curves (the rail is curved before to install) and no sanding ties to fill in those joints after the track is laid. This whole effort is to provide very accurate track, prototypical detail appearance, tie plates too, and with little different skills required than laying flex track and better appearance at much less effort than hand laid track. That's the goal! 8)
-
@narrowminded, @robert3985 have you thought about how to do frog construction for turnout tie strips? I presume you can't solder the frog in place on the tie bed, so it will have to be done as a separate sub-assembly and then installed onto the strip.
I guess the rail for the frog and guard+stock rails will need to all be epoxied into place within the rail guides on the strip, and that will do the job of holding everything in place and in gauge.
Ed
-
@narrowminded, @robert3985 have you thought about how to do frog construction for turnout tie strips? I presume you can't solder the frog in place on the tie bed, so it will have to be done as a separate sub-assembly and then installed onto the strip.
Much like any hand laid turnout, they will be prepped from standard rail and then soldered as a sub-assembly utilizing a precise alignment fixture. Because I will be making more than a few of these, instead of filing to prep I will be making a machine fixture, machining those parts for precision and for convenience. If any real volume occurs then they may get CNC machined as a complete frog from Nickel Silver plate but that will only result down the road, following a natural course based on volume to justify that.
At this point I am planning on furnishing these as a RTR assembly. That is for two reasons. One, it is a chance to inspect everything about all of the pieces, in place, as they will be used. Two, produced in some quantity, not necessarily real high, the parts can be fixtured for good, repeat accuracy and then the final assembly can be fixtured for relatively easy, accurate, assembly not requiring a big labor charge. The biggest costs will be in all of the individual component preps which, once completed, should be pretty easy to assemble. IF it seems that the assembly without using assembly fixtures is pretty straightforward with no experience I may consider a kit at some point but I'd like to get some history before to promise that. But again, if it works simply enough to be offered as an easy to assemble kit, the cost savings kit vs: assembled (with fixtures and experience) will not be too great which comes back to just furnishing assembled. At least that's the present thought pending some actual production experience. ;) :)
I guess the rail for the frog and guard+stock rails will need to all be epoxied into place within the rail guides on the strip, and that will do the job of holding everything in place and in gauge.
I haven't finalized that yet but I doubt I will use epoxy. I may use CA for the frog and small parts like guard rails with Pliobond for the stock rails but that's still up in the air pending actual testing and assembly experience. It may be all Pliobond and there's still a small possibility, very small, that a PC tie will be inserted in the bed, used especially for convenience of wiring. That is a small possibility as I think I have a decent, cost effective, but still robust way of doing that and really don't want to give up the theme of prototypical tie plates on all ties.
-
One thing that has surfaced as I consider Code 55 to Code 40 transition pieces, most likely to be used when coming off a main utilizing Code 55 turnouts, is the spiking detail. There are more spikes utilized in turnouts, fewer empty holes, per pattern #4 on the UP spec sheet @robert3985 furnished above, and that procedure requires that pattern be continued at least the next 40' of track in any direction away from the turnout. The difference is double gauge spikes on the outside of the rail instead of a single spike. Therefore the transition pieces will get these extra spikes. 8)
Because of this, I may also make a turnout extension piece even for Code 40 turnouts that has the extra spikes. That would be the only difference between the regular branch or siding track and the turnout extension piece, the extra spikes. Not necessary functionally different and maybe a little over the top but what the heck, might as well do it if we've gone this far. Cost wouldn't be different.
-
@ednadolski Would you still be using wooden turnout ties in your concrete tie installations? I'm guessing a transition piece from Code 55 to Code 40 concrete track might still be needed. It would start with two wooden ties for the code 55 and the balance would be concrete.
-
Much like any hand laid turnout, they will be prepped from standard rail and then soldered as a sub-assembly utilizing a precise alignment fixture. Because I will be making more than a few of these, instead of filing to prep I will be making a machine fixture, machining those parts for precision and for convenience.
That sounds rather like what FastTracks already offers, or have I misunderstood?
Perhaps another option is to use a frog built up from layers of etched metal? e.g. 4 layers of 0.010" NS, or 5 layers of 0.008" NS, etc., whatever makes sense for the desired dimensions. I think that there are some P:87 parts like that, tho I don't know the availability.
At this point I am planning on furnishing these as a RTR assembly.
I believe P:87 stores offers that as an option for HO and P:87 turnouts. Some of those are built on the CVMW turnout strips. I have no idea of the sales volume, tho IIRC the cost for a hand-assembled was on the order of 2x - 3x an OTS commercial HO turnout like an M.E. #6.
I may consider a kit at some point but I'd like to get some history before to promise that.
There will always be a certain number of :ashat: types who will want kits (to save some $$ and they don't mind doing the work themselves).
... I doubt I will use epoxy. I may use CA for the frog and small parts like guard rails with Pliobond for the stock rails but that's still up in the air pending actual testing and assembly experience.
FWIW I used epoxy to install the frog and guard rails to upgrade an RTR HO turnout to P:87. It's held up fine, and I think it's probably better than Pliobond as I wouldn't want any dimensional flexibility in that area of the turnout.
I don't think I could pull the epoxied parts apart if I tried. I might be an interesting experiment to leave them in an unheated/uncooled garage for a full season or two and see how they hold up to the abuse ;)
@ednadolski Would you still be using wooden turnout ties in your concrete tie installations?
Yes, there aren't yet many proto installations w/concrete turnout ties, at least in what I'm modeling. I'm really interested in finding ways to eliminate any visible PCB ties.
My plans are all vaporware at this point, but after this latest crop of pics my goal would be to go 100% Code 40. It's a perception but next to the C40 the C55 rail is looking more & more coarse to my eye every time I look at it (esp. that doggone shiny rail head width :facepalm:). Kinda like HO scale going back to Atlas C100 after seeing M.E. C83. I would rather trade off the visual contrast between the C55/C40 rail sizes in order to get the finescale look for mainline track, and I can still use other visual cues like tie spacing, relative elevation, ballast size, fishplates, and weathering to convey the distinction between mainline and branch line. So I've started to look at updating my photo-etch turnout frets to see what they would be like with C40 rail.
I usually prefer the look of all-wood ties over plastics, but I've also learned for N scale that when plastic ties are well painted/textured/weathered then they can be quite hard to distinguish from actual wood, even in close-up pics.
Ed
-
That sounds rather like what FastTracks already offers, or have I misunderstood?
No, that's basically the method. I will be making my own fixtures because I will have some that are curved and on all I will be making them to precise lengths as well as angles but if a person had the FastTracks fixture for an angle that they needed I'm sure it could be used.
Perhaps another option is to use a frog built up from layers of etched metal? e.g. 4 layers of 0.010" NS, or 5 layers of 0.008" NS, etc., whatever makes sense for the desired dimensions. I think that there are some P:87 parts like that, tho I don't know the availability.
For production I can't imagine building up frogs from plates has any real benefit unless the tools to file and fit accurately aren't owned, aren't used. I'm also not seeing any benefit in function or in appearance. Am I missing something? :| Maybe I should take a look at their site.
I believe P:87 stores offers that as an option for HO and P:87 turnouts. Some of those are built on the CVMW turnout strips. I have no idea of the sales volume, tho IIRC the cost for a hand-assembled was on the order of 2x - 3x an OTS commercial HO turnout like an M.E. #6.
I really don't have a price yet because so much is new but if everything goes somewhat as planned they shouldn't be too bad. They will likely be more than the lower cost turnouts with cast components and questionable power routing but then again, they should look excellent and also run flawlessly right out of the box. That's part of what this effort is all about. 8)
There will always be a certain number of :ashat: types who will want kits (to save some $$ and they don't mind doing the work themselves).
Well, none of it is etched in stone yet and even if RTR becomes the standard offering, for some, maybe some exceptions could be made. ;) But I do feel it would be best to run the first ones for general consumption, in house, to make sure all works well. The worst thing that could happen would be to have some kind of issue surface that could be easily fixed but winds up unnecessarily harming the reputation of the product. :|
FWIW I used epoxy to install the frog and guard rails to upgrade an RTR HO turnout to P:87. It's held up fine, and I think it's probably better than Pliobond as I wouldn't want any dimensional flexibility in that area of the turnout.
I don't think I could pull the epoxied parts apart if I tried. I might be an interesting experiment to leave them in an unheated/uncooled garage for a full season or two and see how they hold up to the abuse ;)
I don't doubt epoxy would work well but am a little concerned about working neatly and especially, efficiently with it. If it was found to be necessary I'm sure it could be worked out but I think that between CA and Pliobond the needed results can be accomplished. But this is also why I need to proceed with finalizing the design, tooling, and testing. If kits were offered I guess a user could use whatever glue they wanted. :|
You might try your freezer if you wanted to test that joint. If there was going to be a problem it would likely show up early, one to just a few cycles in and out. Are the bonded parts the same material? If so, they grow together. It's the different materials with different expansion rates where the biggest potential for trouble lies. And then, especially when there is a larger dimensioned part involved where the difference in growthl becomes pretty large. A small part may not have the issue because the dimension change is so small and can be handled by the materials. That's why I may use CA on something like a frog but am reluctant to use it over several feet of metal rail bonded to plastic. BTW, quick tests show this resin has similar expansion rates to those of our typical modelling plastics.
Yes, there aren't yet many proto installations w/concrete turnout ties, at least in what I'm modeling. I'm really interested in finding ways to eliminate any visible PCB ties.
That's the goal with what I'm doing. 8)
My plans are all vaporware at this point, but after this latest crop of pics my goal would be to go 100% Code 40. It's a perception but next to the C40 the C55 rail is looking more & more coarse to my eye every time I look at it (esp. that doggone shiny rail head width :facepalm:). Kinda like HO scale going back to Atlas C100 after seeing M.E. C83. I would rather trade off the visual contrast between the C55/C40 rail sizes in order to get the finescale look for mainline track, and I can still use other visual cues like tie spacing, relative elevation, ballast size, fishplates, and weathering to convey the distinction between mainline and branch line. So I've started to look at updating my photo-etch turnout frets to see what they would be like with C40 rail.
I wasn't sure if a mainline tie should be made for Code 40 but reading this and knowing how close the scale dimensions are, maybe it should. It certainly could be done and at little extra effort at this point. What say the masses? :)
I usually prefer the look of all-wood ties over plastics, but I've also learned for N scale that when plastic ties are well painted/textured/weathered then they can be quite hard to distinguish from actual wood, even in close-up pics.
That's what I love about the work some of you guys do. It's truly amazing! 8)
-
One thought to keep in mind is that for a big chunk of the 20th century 115lb rail was pretty heavy mainline steel.
I know for my prototypes of choice code 40 is "mainline" rail. 8)
-
For production I can't imagine building up frogs from plates has any real benefit unless the tools to file and fit accurately aren't owned, aren't used. I'm also not seeing any benefit in function or in appearance. Am I missing something? :| Maybe I should take a look at their site.
Etched parts if done well can have in inherent precision that is hard to achieve mechanically. But be forewarned, that site is a mess - very hard to find anything that you are interested in. (Hard to believe, but it used to be even worse :facepalm: ). If you're curious, here are a few links:
http://www.proto87.com/N_scale_turnouts_and_track.html
http://www.proto87.com/Making_frogs_using_clamps_help.html
http://www.proto87.com/Making_frogs_using_the_frog_fixture_help.html
Ed
-
One thought to keep in mind is that for a big chunk of the 20th century 115lb rail was pretty heavy mainline steel.
I know for my prototypes of choice code 40 is "mainline" rail. 8)
What seems to be developing is a desire for Code 40 Mainline tie for some and a Code 55 Mainline tie for others. The Code 55 offering is solely to make a clear, visible difference between main and branch track with the larger rail size in addition to the tie spacing, maintaining the prototypical tie and tie plate detail not available on any of the flex track offerings. 8)
To that end, for Code 40 mainline track: Tie spacing at 20" and tie dimensions of 9" x 7" x 9' (108"). Branch and siding are 8" x 7" x 8.5' at 22" or 24" spacing. Agreed? This is prototypical according to RTA specs and will also allow for matching rail heights on Code 40 installations when transitioning to branch or siding track. Code 55 Mainline will be the same tie dimensions but will require a transition piece (or shimming standard ties) to adjust the height when transitioning to Code 40.
Note: It seems that tie spacing in turnouts is 19.5". That will be further investigated.
-
To that end, for Code 40 mainline track: Tie spacing at 20" and tie dimensions of 9" x 7" x 9' (108"). Branch and siding are 8" x 7" x 8.5' at 22" or 24" spacing. Agreed?
Agreed; these spacings match the Fast Tracks tie jigs/racks. Personally, starting a new branch/switching layout, the branch and siding products are of interest to me.
-
To that end, for Code 40 mainline track: Tie spacing at 20" and tie dimensions of 9" x 7" x 9' (108"). Branch and siding are 8" x 7" x 8.5' at 22" or 24" spacing. Agreed? This is prototypical according to RTA specs and will also allow for matching rail heights on Code 40 installations when transitioning to branch or siding track.
I've sold an awful lot of ties in my career and can say with some certainty that the UP was one of the only roads I can recall that standardized 9' long ties.
Most other Class I's were 8'6" and the SP and Canadian Class I's actually used a lot of 8' ties.
-
I've sold an awful lot of ties in my career and can say with some certainty that the UP was one of the only roads I can recall that standardized 9' long ties.
Most other Class I's were 8'6" and the SP and Canadian Class I's actually used a lot of 8' ties.
Well ain't that special. :D Guess who's feeding a lot of the raw info here. :| @robert3985 , Mr. UP himself! :D I actually find that pretty humorous and if Robert wants 9' ties, Robert gets 9' ties. 8) He and Ed Nadolski has been very helpful. This is a really good example of what this is all about. We can have a lot of details at little to no extra cost. I'll make 9', UP mainline, and then continue with 8'6" for (most) everything else? Agreed? :)
Is there any other good tie tidbits that you could shed light on? Switches at 19.5" spacing for example? Bridge track? Anything else that strikes you? 8)
-
Agreed; these spacings match the Fast Tracks tie jigs/racks. Personally, starting a new branch/switching layout, the branch and siding products are of interest to me.
How soon will you be ready to lay track? It won't be long until this is available but if your need arises before this is announced, make sure to contact me. I suspect we will be able to hook you up even if all details, instructions, packaging and such aren't completed. Thanks for your interest. 8)
-
So if you are doing a code 40 UP branch, with 9' ties, you will need to also do a section or two of 9' ties on the main .. otherwise it might look "off"
-
Another color test w/the concrete tie strips: here are a few quick pics of a strip, using an artist's paint pen to color the tie clips. This kind of pen has a point tip on one end and a chisel tip on the other; I found that the latter was easier & faster for me:
(https://i.imgur.com/sRV0cAm.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IGWiMqU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/vWMyDVx.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/edvK6Yn.jpg)
It's a little hard to see in the pics, but one thing that is different from using a brush is that you get less paint on the sides of the clips. This has the effect of making the clips look smaller when viewed from a low side angle.
(Edit - I forgot to mention, I painted the clips before installing the rail.)
(Side note: you don't want to use a Sharpie for this, if you are going to spray alcohol to wet the ballast for gluing.)
Ed
-
To that end, for Code 40 mainline track: Tie spacing at 20" and tie dimensions of 9" x 7" x 9' (108"). Branch and siding are 8" x 7" x 8.5' at 22" or 24" spacing.
Is it possible to make the branch strip ties with some slight angling, so that they are less perfectly parallel than the mainline ties?
On M.E. flextrack, the design of the webbing helps ensure that the ties will not be quite so parallel, esp. on curves.
Ed
-
So if you are doing a code 40 UP branch, with 9' ties, you will need to also do a section or two of 9' ties on the main .. otherwise it might look "off"
Branch lines are and remain at 8'6". It is only mainline ties that are being considered for 9' ties.
-
Another color test w/the concrete tie strips: here are a few quick pics of a strip, using an artist's paint pen to color the tie clips. This kind of pen has a point tip on one end and a chisel tip on the other; I found that the latter was easier & faster for me:
It's a little hard to see in the pics, but one thing that is different from using a brush is that you get less paint on the sides of the clips. This has the effect of making the clips look smaller when viewed from a low side angle.
(Edit - I forgot to mention, I painted the clips before installing the rail.)
(Side note: you don't want to use a Sharpie for this, if you are going to spray alcohol to wet the ballast for gluing.)
Ed
I get it on the Sharpie. That would be quite a let down to get all of that done and then have it bleed all over when ballasting. :(
So this Copic Marker is a paint pen? Or at least alcohol resistant? I really like it and the same idea should be able to be used on the wood ties. I ordered some 1mm paint pen tips to use with paint as I described above. I'll definitely want to try the Copic piece though. If it does the job it will certainly be less effort than the individual tip. Very nice as usual, Ed. 8)
-
Is it possible to make the branch strip ties with some slight angling, so that they are less perfectly parallel than the mainline ties?
On M.E. flextrack, the design of the webbing helps ensure that the ties will not be quite so parallel, esp. on curves.
Ed
Yes, that can certainly be done and has already been considered. There was a concern on my part about being able to readily trim and then butt pieces but really, that's just a worry that I don't think is valid. It should be easy enough to keep the rails/ guides aligned and spaced using the recommended .040" square styrene strip set into one side's guides and visually determining a good tie spacing. The more I'm working with this the more comfortable I am with these possibilities.
My original thought for this detail was to go ahead and lay the uniformly spaced strip and then, once the tie base glue has set a little, snip, wet, and shift whichever ties you wanted using a piece of styrene or rail to assure guide alignment. The more I have experimented with this the more I think that's not necessary. It can be built in as you're suggesting.
When more feedback is in I will get to work on edits incorporating all of the cosmetic changes determined to be useful. You're down for angled and less than perfect tie spacing. 8) I'm thinking it's well worth a trial. :)
-
So this Copic Marker is a paint pen? Or at least alcohol resistant?
LOL, you've caught me.... I bought it so long ago that I actually don't remember. I just used it 'cuz that's what I had on hand, and I wanted to show the chisel tip... :facepalm:
Edit - this says it's alcohol based ink: https://www.amazon.com/Copic-Marker-SB12-12-Piece-Sketch/dp/B000MRR3GU
Ed
-
The Code 55 to Code 40 transition bed is out of the printer and seems good to go. 8) It is spaced as branch ties. There may be some use for other tie arrangements, maybe mainline, especially for mixing and matching or patching in pieces. If so, they can be made but for now I'm just doing the branch line.
This piece is to assure proper rail alignment when transitioning from code 55 to code 40 rail, accurately aligning the rail top and inside edge (gauge) without the use of rail joiners or other difficult or tedious to execute methods that often have results less than optimum. It has two ties at the code 55 dimensions to accept the code 55 rail and then transitions to code 40 for the balance of the strip. The rail gauge and height are nicely matched at this point.
Because a likely place to use this strip is coming off a turnout from a mainline or another branch line it also has the UP spec double spikes on the outside rail, required for 40' of track past any turnout. This piece of tie bed nominally represents that length at 3 1/8" long (41') with UP spiking pattern 4B. From there on the standard branch or siding tie bed can attach, continuing the run at the normal pattern for the bed being used. If different spike patterns were needed they could be added but until requested this will be it.
Here are some photos showing the freshly minted pieces in a trial fit with an Atlas #5 Code 55 turnout. Coming off of the turnout, the last two non-prototypical interrupted ties allowing for a rail joiner to pass in normal service have been trimmed off. The adapter tie bed registers to that short length of rail. These pics show where the adapter is installed, the need for such an adapter, as well as the effectiveness of it in use.
This turnout is out of spec by .005" over max NMRA spec on the entry, .002" over NMRA spec in the view with the tie bed, and at the maximum in the adjacent through run. This type of error is not uncommon. :| Even a turnout within NMRA spec can be misaligned by as much as .009" when one is at the max and one at the minimum so this alignment will almost never be perfect but with this arrangement it is good, first time, every time. 8)
Pic one, the last two ties, interrupted for the rail joiners to pass, are removed. The two trimmed ties are filled in with the first two ties of the adapter and are what engage with the code 55 rail to accurately accomplish the transition:
[attachimg=1]
Pic two, the adapter is in position at the turnout but the code 55 rail is not pressed into its guides and shows the misalignment that will have to be corrected by whatever adaption method is used. The code 40 tie bed is the one meeting NMRA spec. The turnout is not:
[attachimg=2]
And final pic is the code 55 rail engaged in the tie pockets and guides, aligning the code 55 rail inside edge (gauge) and height with the code 40 rail:
[attachimg=3]
This how a branch line or siding might be installed with Code 40 on a typical Code 55 layout. Even I can work with this! ;) :D
-
LOL, you've caught me.... I bought it so long ago that I actually don't remember. I just used it 'cuz that's what I had on hand, and I wanted to show the chisel tip... :facepalm:
Edit - this says it's alcohol based ink: https://www.amazon.com/Copic-Marker-SB12-12-Piece-Sketch/dp/B000MRR3GU
Ed
OK. The idea is still valid.
I have ordered some 1mm tips to experiment with. They might be OK as they come but as I mentioned previously, I experimented with a larger tip stolen from another paint marker and held in my pin vise. It seemed to work well and would probably be able to be dialed in as far as paint color and consistency. I was able to chisel shape the tip with the side of my cut-off wheel in my rotary tool. They can also be cleaned in Acetone, ready for another use. When they come in would you want me to drop one in an envelope to you? Maybe Robert, too?
I still want to come up with a way to mask the space between the tie guides where the rail will be glued for painting them without the rail installed. To that end, do you (or anybody) know of any sticker type glue, maybe spray on? If I had such a product I could envision spraying one side of the .040" styrene, inserting it between the tie guides, stuck and sealed, and then paint with Acrylic paint in the airbrush. The idea of acrylic paint is to not dissolve the masking glue, making a sticky mess of it. When done, cleanly remove the styrene strips and reuse for the next one.
Pliobond left to dry reasonably complete might work for this but I haven't tried it yet. One advantage would be, if there's any residual glue left in the groove it could be left as it would remelt right in with the final rail install. (It can be reactivated with Acetone). But there must be something that would accomplish this more easily and with assured results. :| I like things that just plain work. 8) :D
-
Well ain't that special. :D Guess who's feeding a lot of the raw info here. :| @robert3985 , Mr. UP himself! :D I actually find that pretty humorous and if Robert wants 9' ties, Robert gets 9' ties. 8) He and Ed Nadolski has been very helpful. This is a really good example of what this is all about. We can have a lot of details at little to no extra cost. I'll make 9', UP mainline, and then continue with 8'6" for (most) everything else? Agreed? :)
Is there any other good tie tidbits that you could shed light on? Switches at 19.5" spacing for example? Bridge track? Anything else that strikes you? 8)
Hahaha! :) @narrowminded Mark, and OTHERS...I am going to assume the ideal business model for producing 3D printed parts is to not have any inventory on hand (or a very low inventory), meaning parts are printed when ordered and paid for so no taxation occurs every quarter on your existing inventory. If anybody else wants different sized mainline ties, then by all means get off your butts and send Mark some prototype drawings! That's all I've done. My drawings happen to be mostly U.P. drawings because that's what I'm modeling.
Mark and I, and I assume Ed @ednadolski , have put our heads together using prototype drawing/photos to come up with what looks best and builds well in N-scale. This includes making some of the printed-on components not exactly like the prototype, either in style or dimension. For instance, scale-sized spikeheads would be essentially non-visible, and tie plates that were scale-sized in thickness would also be difficult, if not impossible to see. On the other hand, square spike-holes not being used in the tie-plates are difficult to print because of the limitations of the resin and 3D printer, and the layering/curing process, especially with sharp corners and a functional depth.
BUT, with my sharp, Optivisored eyes critically looking at the ties strips that Mark has sent me for evaluation, and comparing them to the best flextrack ever made (Rail-Craft C40) and present-day Micro Engineering C40 flex, I don't have to be a genius to see that what Mark has developed looks exponentially better than any injection molded N-scale track EVER PRODUCED!
As to Mark's choice of tie dimensions, location and spacing, spikehead dimensions, tie plate dimensions and spike patterns being derived from official Union Pacific drawings, here's my reply:
During the Harriman Era, or "Common Standard Era", track standards, along with many other railroad standards, applied to Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, and possibly to Illinois Central, Chesapeake Ohio & Southwestern, Louisville & Nashville.
Of note is that all of each railroad's subsidiary roads also fell under Harriman's "Common Standard" requirements, which would include similar track standards.
Since I model the U.P. from 1947 through 1956, my information is relegated to the Union Pacific and UP's subsidiaries...the Oregon Shortline Railroad (OSL), the Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company (OWR&N), and the Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad (LA&SL).
Some of the information I've sent Mark is obsolete for the modern U.P., and some information doesn't apply to U.P. in the transition era I'm modeling, but is correct for relatively modern (1960's through 1980's) track.
Since most model railroaders know that Union Pacific has been busy acquiring both major and small railroads over the years, I was going to post a list of railroads that once existed but have been controlled by, and finally fully owned by Union Pacific, but the list is waaaay too long. Major railroads that U.P. has acquired in the latter part of the 20th Century are: Southern Pacific, Missouri Pacific, Western Pacific, Rock Island, MKT, Spokane International Railroad, and the C&NW.
Union Pacific has also signed trackage rights to other major railroads, particularly BNSF which allows BNSF to run on tracks previously owned by WP, SP and UP.
Sooooo....what this much-condensed and brief acquisition history of Harriman and Union Pacific points out, is that modeling a new track product using dimensions derived from Union Pacific official documents is a good choice, because chances are, they are identical or very similar to many, if not the majority, of railroads in the USA.
Everybody should also know that I am not "pushing" Mark to do Union Pacific trackage. I have simply supplied him with official drawings of prototype Union Pacific track standards, and he has made his own choices as to what to produce.
On the other hand, posting here and just saying that a certain weight of rail was very common, or a certain dimension of tie was very common, or a certain type of tie plate was most common, or a certain spike pattern was most common...none of these claims hold water unless you have documentation...and even then, as both Mark and I have determined, "most common" is usually not indicated on the prototype drawings because they are all for specific applications and what is "most common" is just a statistic, and of no interest to those actually building the tracks.
From my initial observations of Mark's wooden tie strips in-hand, I would only suggest two things: (1) lower the connectors/spacers between ties to half-tie height to allow ballast to cover them on straight track, with daylight under the rail between ties, and make them easier to clip off on curved track (2) Take Ed's suggestion and put some non-parallel ties on the light traffic siding tie strips.
The Holiday Season has caught me up with family events and shoveling snow, so my detailed review and photos will happen after New Year's Day...also my youngest son's birthday, and one day short of my youngest granddaughter's birthday!
Later today, I'll be showing Mark's wooden tie strips to several N-scale model railroad friends of mine at a little impromptu op session in Salt Lake City.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
I have been following this thread with great joy, and hope to use some of the final results.
A couple of tangential thoughts came while reading some of the posts:
1. Concerning whether epoxy can withstand repeated heating and cooling cycles when attaching two dissimilar materials - there is a version of epoxy that is designed to stay slightly flexible after it cures. It is called G/flex, by West System. I have used it to attach a stainless steel hinge to a plexiglass panel cover on my sailboat, and it has withstood many years of scorching summer sun and winter deep freezes without loosening. It is "thickened", so it might be a little clumsy to use in N scale, but, having worked with it elsewhere, I think it is doable. It comes in two 4.5 oz tubes, and cures slowly.
2. To me, the "look" of model track has a lot to do with the height of the rails relative to the tops of the ties, with the track gauge providing the best visual scale reference. I took the opportunity to measure some real rail, on what was once the Reading mainline, now using 132 lb welded rail. The actual rail height is 7-1/8", which comes out to 0.0445" in N scale. But, it is sitting on top of tie plates that are 3/4" thick under the rails, so in N scale, that adds another 0.004+" to the height of the rail head above the ties, making the net visual effect more like N scale track made with code 49 rail, if the model rail seat between the visible ends of the tie plates is at the same level as the ties. My caliper tells me that ME "code 40" rail is really code 43, which is equivalent to prototype rail that is 6-7/8" tall. But, if the model rail base is sitting at tie top level, then it will make track that looks more like prototype track made with rail that is only 6-1/8" tall, sitting on top of 3/4" thick tie plates. That is down in the 105-to-110 lb rail range, which is much more like "branch line" track that we have been thinking. Similar reasoning tells me that N scale code 55 rail, which scales to 8.8" in prototype section height, has about the same appearance as rail that is about 8" high sitting on top of 3/4" tie plates. So, that looks like a model of heavy mainline rail that is in the 152-to-155 lb range, which was not common except on heavy Pennsy tracks. However, if the model tie strip for code 55 rail could be made with the seat for the rail 0.006" lower than the tie upper surface level, then N scale model track made with code 55 rail could be made to have roughly the same appearance as prototype track made with 125-to-132 lb rail. The "depth of base" on the code 55 rail that I just checked with a caliper is about 0.018" thick, so setting that down about a third of its thickness doesn't seem like it would be a visual issue on the finished model. (For those who are interested in rail section dimensions for different rail weights and designs, look here: https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/outlinedrawings/Track-Components-Section.pdf .)
-
Historical point of order, Union Pacific never acquired Rock Island. They own some of their former track, but No one acquired the company, it was liquidated... :D
That post almost borders on political or religious Bob! ;)
By your argument the best prototype for N Scale Track should be CN standards since they controlled more mileage and fallen flags :trollface:
Tongue firmly in cheek of course...
As far as most common vs standards, the method to be most accurate would be to look at condensed profiles for your chosen prototype... For most roads they listed the rail weight, ballast material, dates for installation.
It's a interesting rabbit hole to venture down, makes me wish there was sub code 40 rail to accurately recreate the size differences...
-
As far as most common vs standards, the method to be most accurate would be to look at condensed profiles for your chosen prototype... For most roads they listed the rail weight, ballast material, dates for installation.
It's a interesting rabbit hole to venture down, makes me wish there was sub code 40 rail to accurately recreate the size differences...
In the interest of moving along with the project and satisfying the broadest needs, something that is pretty highly detailed and offers enough variation to enable a modeler to nicely represent their chosen locale, are there any other suggestions you might have from your experience?
I think that the 9' mainline ties, especially when positioned next to 8.5" ties and being very road specific, will justify two offerings for mainline. 9' UP spec and 8.5' "standard" spec. Then 9"x 7" mainline and 8"x 7" branch and siding ties. Is the 8' branch and siding tie length important to make available? :| It seems like it might be. :|
-
The tracks around here (eastern U.S.) seem to mostly have 8-1/2" long ties, 9" wide, spaced at various distances on track with different rail weights. So, my preference is 8.5' for both mainline and secondary track ties, both 9" wide, with the difference being that the secondary track has ties spaced more widely and less evenly.
I will probably want to use code 55 for the mainline, especially if you can make the rail bases sit about 0.006" lower than the tops of the ties, as I described in my previous post. The different size rails plus the different tie spacing and evenness should make a strong enough statement that one is mainline and the other is secondary, without making different tie lengths.
-
@ednadolski , and @robert3985 I visited Michael's today and found some finishing supplies that definitely have promise. It's a fillable pen with a 1mm hard tip and a small bottle of acrylic ink, not water based, with an eye dropper for dispensing. I dressed the pen tip to a straight chisel. Here are some samples from tie bed I had already painted with Krylon Camo and assembled with rail painted with MM acrylic. I hand colored these tie plates with no masking or anything special other than using a mid power optivisor. The ink is waterproof and stands straight application of 99% alcohol with no bleed. Also applies thin and dries very flat and shrinks to not hide the details. I'm liking the way the materials act if not the colors.
Here are a couple of pics:
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
I'm enjoying the way this is coming together. 8)
-
The tracks around here (eastern U.S.) seem to mostly have 8-1/2" long ties, 9" wide, spaced at various distances on track with different rail weights. So, my preference is 8.5' for both mainline and secondary track ties, both 9" wide, with the difference being that the secondary track has ties spaced more widely and less evenly.
I will probably want to use code 55 for the mainline, especially if you can make the rail bases sit about 0.006" lower than the tops of the ties, as I described in my previous post. The different size rails plus the different tie spacing and evenness should make a strong enough statement that one is mainline and the other is secondary, without making different tie lengths.
I think that may have merit and can be definitely be done. There may be an issue with appearance at the tie plates as they will effectively look like they are way up on the rail foot. In the first efforts that was an issue and the plate was lowered to not mask the foot as much, keep the appearance of a real tie plate. Anybody else have any thoughts on this? For all I can do, my artistic eye isn't always the best. ;)
-
1. Concerning whether epoxy can withstand repeated heating and cooling cycles when attaching two dissimilar materials - there is a version of epoxy that is designed to stay slightly flexible after it cures. It is called G/flex, by West System. I have used it to attach a stainless steel hinge to a plexiglass panel cover on my sailboat, and it has withstood many years of scorching summer sun and winter deep freezes without loosening. It is "thickened", so it might be a little clumsy to use in N scale, but, having worked with it elsewhere, I think it is doable. It comes in two 4.5 oz tubes, and cures slowly.
That sounds pretty promising. Not that I have anything against Pliobond, as I've rarely used it. However when I have it's been rather stringy and messy to work, and I found it hard to make it go where I wanted. I've heard that some folks thin it with MEK (I prefer to avoid the nastier chemical solvents) and others have been able to apply it with a fine syringe (not sure if that was for C40 rail tho).
I've also heard that Pliobond can be heat cured by applying a soldering iron to the rail after setting it into place on the ties. IDK how well that would work with printed ties, as I suspect they would have a low tolerance for that level of heat.
Seems that the syringe applicator might work well for the G/flex on C40 rail. it's just one of those things I'd have to get around to trying out ;)
-
However, if the model tie strip for code 55 rail could be made with the seat for the rail 0.006" lower than the tie upper surface level, then N scale model track made with code 55 rail could be made to have roughly the same appearance as prototype track made with 125-to-132 lb rail.
Seems that would look like the rail was sinking into each tie by about a scale inch.
Plus it creates a vertical gap between the rail base and the spikes, and you could no longer make the ballast level with the tie tops because it would keep the rail from fully seating into the guides.
I'm not really sure anyways that I see a benefit to making C55 rail lower, over than making the C40 rail sit higher. (And then it brings back the cosmetic issues of the C55 railhead width, which is a stopper at least for me FWIW).
Ed
-
Here are some samples from tie bed I had already painted with Krylon Camo and assembled with rail painted with MM acrylic.
The tieplates/spikes look good, tho this color contrast makes the ties themselves look a little too dark/black to my eye (at least in the pics). That said, there is a tradeoff to keep in mind WRT color choices, because if they get too close then the details will start to disappear under normal viewing.
Have you tried distressing the top surface of the ties to create an impression of wood grain?
Ed
-
That sounds pretty promising. Not that I have anything against Pliobond, as I've rarely used it. However when I have it's been rather stringy and messy to work, and I found it hard to make it go where I wanted. I've heard that some folks thin it with MEK (I prefer to avoid the nastier chemical solvents) and others have been able to apply it with a fine syringe (not sure if that was for C40 rail tho).
I've also heard that Pliobond can be heat cured by applying a soldering iron to the rail after setting it into place on the ties. IDK how well that would work with printed ties, as I suspect they would have a low tolerance for that level of heat.
Seems that the syringe applicator might work well for the G/flex on C40 rail. it's just one of those things I'd have to get around to trying out ;)
I think between CA and Pliobond, strength of the joint won't be an issue. I like the Pliobond not for its strength but for its desirable characteristics in use. I am still working on suggested application methods but have already thinned it enough to not string and then brushed on with a very fine brush (that's how my first effort, the Nn3 test track was done). Since then, I have applied with a small plastic tipped syringe (.020" I.D.?) and that seems fine except the syringe I had, for as fine as it was, was still a little too course and the nozzle, being plastic, was a little too bulky for my liking. I just ordered some new smaller volume syringes with a much smaller piston as well as a very fine SS blunt tipped needle. The smaller piston should afford better control and the needle with a much smaller OD should help with the bead that's layed down. I will be experimenting with that as well as some ideas I have for a needle guide that will help with easy control of the needle tip if applying to rail lengths but it also may be controllable enough to just apply individually between the tie guides. And thinning is always an option. This still needs some experimenting to come up with an easy to execute, recommended plan for application. The ways I've done it this far have all worked but I'm trying to make it easier for mere mortals without experience to have a good chance of success. :)
And yes, a soldering iron can be used to adjust the joint and it's also the way hand laid track folks have fixed popped joints, warming with a soldering iron rubbed on the top of the rail in the vicinity of the area that needs to be reseated. I had one joint on my test track that I hadn't fully seated when I was assembling it so it sat just a hair high with glue filling the gap at the base, not noticed for a day or two. A regular electronics solder iron rubbed over the joint for a few inches and for a half minute or so, settled the rail right in. The rail, as small as it is, is a pretty big heat sink for a typical solder iron (25-35W?) so it's not easy to overheat the assembly if you just press on it and keep slowly sliding it back and forth over the vicinity of the area being reworked. And that joint as well as the whole test track is still exactly in place even after exposing it to as low as 24 degrees F to test the expansion/ contraction survivability. It showed zero effects.
And another point about a solder iron in the vicinity of the rail, I have soldered a feeder to an installed rail from the top side in the conventional way of attaching feeders to flex track, catching just the outside lip of the rail foot and dropping it down between the outer tie stubs. My normal approach for this is, when fitting the rail, selecting a spot right over a tie bridge piece where I want to drop the feeder, marking the rail, and then soldering the feeder to the rail bottom center. I then snip and remove that piece of tie bridge, drill through the base, and feed the wire through while gluing down the rail. That has the feeder centered directly under the rail so very well hidden. The one I dropped from the top was one I forgot to do while I was preoccupied with first time installing. :facepalm: The point is, it worked with no visible effect to the ties and no extra precautions while soldering. Some might even prefer doing it this way. 8)
There will be more sorting of these things and I really want to get this sorted and demonstrated in videos to assure folks have a good shot at success when working with it. None of it is that hard but there will be some important details. Good info going in should make successful installation easy. 8)
-
The tieplates/spikes look good, tho this color contrast makes the ties themselves look a little too dark/black to my eye (at least in the pics). That said, there is a tradeoff to keep in mind WRT color choices, because if they get too close then the details will start to disappear under normal viewing.
Have you tried distressing the top surface of the ties to create an impression of wood grain?
Ed
Understood on the color differential. Do you have a tie and rail paint color that you like? I have used the standard Testors(?) rail brown and tie brown this far and find it OK but if there's something that you find that you like I'd be inclined to try it. Afterall... ;) I do think that some dry brushing and weathering could take care of the looks for a host of dark base colors, just maybe not that dark. Krylon Camo dark brown is what that is and I'd say it's very close to black in person.
As far as wood grain, I haven't tried anything yet but suspect that a piece of fine tooth hacksaw blade could get that done. The stuff will scar pretty easily. Just watch the tie plates. :)
-
Seems that would look like the rail was sinking into each tie by about a scale inch.
Plus it creates a vertical gap between the rail base and the spikes, and you could no longer make the ballast level with the tie tops because it would keep the rail from fully seating into the guides.
I'm not really sure anyways that I see a benefit to making C55 rail lower, over than making the C40 rail sit higher. (And then it brings back the cosmetic issues of the C55 railhead width, which is a stopper at least for me FWIW).
Ed
And @Maletrain , that's my concern. I'm inclined to agree with Ed's thoughts on this. The idea sounds like it could have merit but there's so much rail still exposed between ties, the tie plate won't render nearly as well especially in relation to the rail, and then the rail head on code 55 is so much larger than code 40 (027" vs: .018").
-
And @Maletrain , that's my concern. I'm inclined to agree with Ed's thoughts on this. The idea sounds like it could have merit but there's so much rail still exposed between ties, the tie plate won't render nearly as well especially in relation to the rail, and then the rail head on code 55 is so much larger than code 40 (027" vs: .018").
Understood about the rail head. The real 150 lb rail has a 3" rail head width that scales to 0.01875 in N scale, while the real rail heads for 110-to-132 lb rail run between 2-1/2" to 3" (depending on design more than weight), so the code 40 rail head looks pretty good for any track we intend to model.
Perhaps the way to make the rail height difference between mainline and branch lines noticeable would be to use code 40 for both, but make the tie strip for the mainlines actually include something like scale 3/4" thick tie plates under the rail bases. So, in effect, the mainline rails sit about 0.004"-to-0.005" higher off the ties than the branch line rails. 0.004" in N scale translates to about 5/8" and 0.005" translates to about 13/16" on the prototype, so it is pretty close to the difference between rail heights in the 110 lb and 132 lb categories.
-
make the tie strip for the mainlines actually include something like scale 3/4" thick tie plates under the rail bases.
I think this has merit for the concrete ties as well. In fact, the prototype does exactly that:
(https://doublebhomestead.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/p1020188.jpg)
Note how the plate doesn't go quite the full top width of the tie... it's even a bit shy of the chamfered top corners.
Ed
-
Hahaha! :) @narrowminded
BUT, with my sharp, Optivisored eyes critically looking at the ties strips that Mark has sent me for evaluation, and comparing them to the best flextrack ever made (Rail-Craft C40) and present-day Micro Engineering C40 flex, I don't have to be a genius to see that what Mark has developed looks exponentially better than any injection molded N-scale track EVER PRODUCED!
Thanks for that vote of confidence, Robert. 8) The goal was to produce very functional and otherwise unavailable products and then make them look good too. I'm tearing up over here. ;) :D
Everybody should also know that I am not "pushing" Mark to do Union Pacific trackage. I have simply supplied him with official drawings of prototype Union Pacific track standards, and he has made his own choices as to what to produce.
This is true. That's where suggestions made here, that 8.5' mainline ties are a very common length, proved useful and was the vote of confidence that the cursory mention in my own research was legitimate. Thanks @Missaberoad
When I started posting after already working and testing the functional aspects of this effort, including making nicely functioning Nn3 track, Robert jumped right in and offered some specific information that I didn't have. His advice also came with decades of experience chasing the same goals I was chasing and from his extensive experience was very familiar with the problems this effort presented. I knew details would matter, had done some basic research of these details, I just didn't have a good handle on some of the specifics. Plus the research I was doing burned a LOT of time discovering a lot of well intentioned advice but from folks with little more knowledge of the specifics than myself. Robert's advice was backed up with a lot of support documentation which was very refreshing for me. Yes, it's largely UP specific but it's also designed to serve the same set of requirements as any track, so in general, won't be far off and has a better chance of being realistic than my best, minimally experienced, guess. 8) Thanks, Robert.
I think the tie plates are common enough by style and the spiking patterns follow a nice logic, are extremely tiny so just their presence somewhere near perceptibly correct should be good as a common offering with spiking details as noted for each (at least this far, pending some new info I don't have), and they ring true with my foggy memory of track I've seen. ;) The 8.5'/ 9' tie lengths with their 6" difference in length (.0375" scale) is a detail that has not been addressed in any prior offerings that I've seen but is also just visible enough to justify a separate offering for the level of detail being pursued in this effort. In a highly detailed scene this subtle difference will add that extra touch that discerning modellers might recognize for what it is. 8)
Later today, I'll be showing Mark's wooden tie strips to several N-scale model railroad friends of mine at a little impromptu op session in Salt Lake City.
And dare I ask, how did that go? :scared:
-
I think between CA and Pliobond, strength of the joint won't be an issue. I like the Pliobond not for its strength but for its desirable characteristics in use. I am still working on suggested application methods but have already thinned it enough to not string and then brushed on with a very fine brush (that's how my first effort, the Nn3 test track was done). Since then, I have applied with a small plastic tipped syringe (.020" I.D.?) and that seems fine except the syringe I had, for as fine as it was, was still a little too course and the nozzle, being plastic, was a little too bulky for my liking. I just ordered some new smaller volume syringes with a much smaller piston as well as a very fine SS blunt tipped needle. The smaller piston should afford better control and the needle with a much smaller OD should help with the bead that's layed down. I will be experimenting with that as well as some ideas I have for a needle guide that will help with easy control of the needle tip if applying to rail lengths but it also may be controllable enough to just apply individually between the tie guides. And thinning is always an option. This still needs some experimenting to come up with an easy to execute, recommended plan for application. The ways I've done it this far have all worked but I'm trying to make it easier for mere mortals without experience to have a good chance of success. :)
Sounds good. Do you apply adhesive to a full 3' length of rail? Seems that would need a few things:
- A jig to hold the rail (or several rails) bottom-side up
- A way to grip and handle the rail after applying adhesive to the bottom
- Something to hold the rail in place while the adhesive cures.
Any ideas? For the last one at least, my thought is some kind of small (steel or brass for the weight) cylinder or block with grooves in it to hold the rail down and in gauge. Place one every couple of inches or so....
Ed
-
Do you have a tie and rail paint color that you like?
Actually I've always most liked the color of the ME weathered rail, but I've never been able to replicate the look with any kind of solid-color paint. Track weathers just like everything else, so capturing the desired look takes trial and error, and of course, time.
It would be nice to use the pre-weathered rail w/the concrete ties, tho I am concerned about how will an adhesive will bond to it. It would be kind of a drag to have to clean the weathering off the underside of the base on every inch of rail, tho a little bit of that would be needed anyways for feeder wires.
Tie color really varies quite a bit. As a solid base color, I recall using the SP Lark Dark Gray (the old PollyScale), but I like something with a hint of dark brown too. I can't think offhand of anything that comes in a rattle can, but there are so many colors nowadays it should be possible to find something (and then watch it get discontinued, lol).
As far as wood grain, I haven't tried anything yet but suspect that a piece of fine tooth hacksaw blade could get that done. The stuff will scar pretty easily. Just watch the tie plates. :)
A few passes of a razor-saw blade and a bit of wire brushing would probably suffice, depending on the desired effect. After a base coat, then a dark wash plus some dry-brushing to highlight the grain. You and @robert3985 are almost making me want to switch to a prototype/era with wood ties :D
Ed
-
Understood about the rail head. The real 150 lb rail has a 3" rail head width that scales to 0.01875 in N scale, while the real rail heads for 110-to-132 lb rail run between 2-1/2" to 3" (depending on design more than weight), so the code 40 rail head looks pretty good for any track we intend to model.
Perhaps the way to make the rail height difference between mainline and branch lines noticeable would be to use code 40 for both, but make the tie strip for the mainlines actually include something like scale 3/4" thick tie plates under the rail bases. So, in effect, the mainline rails sit about 0.004"-to-0.005" higher off the ties than the branch line rails. 0.004" in N scale translates to about 5/8" and 0.005" translates to about 13/16" on the prototype, so it is pretty close to the difference between rail heights in the 110 lb and 132 lb categories.
That would also be doable BUT... the dimension per @robert3985 's furnished drawings of tie plates are 11/16" for those suitable for 130# rail and 7/16" for 90# rail. That translates to .004" for the heavier rail and <.003" for the lighter rail. This is an area that has already had a few edits from the initial trial piece, striving to get the tie plates looking correct. It was lowered .003" from the first effort which was a little too clubby looking, while fudging the angled rise to keep the function as a guide robustly intact and easy to use. In true scale they would be virtually invisible so as made they are already slightly oversized (at .005") but visibly decent, while still being high enough to function well as a rail guide. These edits were in the .003" max shift range with the plate lowered and the spikes raised.
Sooo, to add height at the rail foot would require raising the tie plate that equal amount and that starts to get the most prominent feature, the tie plate, going back to the already discarded dimensions due to the effect on the visible appearance. The outside edge will be too high or if raised only against the rail, increasing the angle to correct for the higher rail foot, the already slightly over sized angle will start to look more like a European perch than a tie plate. There is a very delicate balance going on here between being technically correct and looking visibly correct.
Bottom line, my inclination is not to mess with that dimension as I feel it will make the prominent feature, the tie plate, look worse to make the less prominent feature, to the point of being obscure, a little more technically prototypical. Through the course of several edits in exactly this area, I've already seen what additional height and additional taper on the visible tie plate looks like and for just a few thousandths change in any of those dimensions the result is pretty dramatic, most evident in photographs (a couple of thousandths becomes a near 50% change). :|
Obviously, this is just my opinion and if folks really thought that raising the foot in the guide would add something it's only a few simple edits to do it but based on what's just been outlined I'm not inclined to do it. I hope that's taken in the spirit it's offered and not taken as a slight to a very legitimate thought/ suggestion. It is helpful to hear these things even if they are not ultimately adopted. They help us to make something that's the best it can be. "Better modeling through peer pressure!"
And @ednadolski , all that was just outlined is not the same issue with the concrete ties as those tie plates are prototypically much larger and wouldn't tend to cause the tie plate height problems I just outlined with the wooden ties... I think. ;) If there was benefit, I think it could be done, but there is one issue that might be worth considering before to proceed, the height change to the tie bed when transitioning from wooden ties (turnouts? sidings?) to concrete ties. By design the concrete ties are larger and already set the rail foot about .008" higher than wooden ties. That will already require shimming the wood ties to mate which isn't really a problem but adding another .003" to .005" resulting in .012"+/- might start to make that transition harsher than can readily be accommodated in a reasonable space, especially on short sidings. I'm not sure if that's enough of a problem to care about but should be weighed. Would raising that pocket really improve the concrete track appearance? That answer would dictate the decision. I'll seriously consider it based on folks' opinion. So what say the masses? ;)
Also, it seems that there might be a use for transition ties from concrete to wood, especially code 55 to 40 as was made for ease of alignment of the wood tie transition and for all of the same reasons. Unless there's absolutely no need foreseen I'll put that on the list of drawings to make up. 8)
-
And I think I've got a slick way to mask the rail guide pockets for pre-painting the tie bed with acrylic paint through the airbrush before to install the rails. I've got a few little dumb pieces to make and then the rest will be up to the user to knock together from bits of scraps about the shop and home. Low cost and easy. 8)
I already sorta' tried it with a rigged up bit of tape and manual manipulation and it looks like it will work. ;) :D
-
... I hope that's taken in the spirit it's offered and not taken as a slight to a very legitimate thought/ suggestion. It is helpful to hear these things even if they are not ultimately adopted. They help us to make something that's the best it can be. "Better modeling through peer pressure!"
...
No "slight" taken. The whole process is really an exercise in making it look good, given what we have to work with. So, I think we all understand that a choice between potential compromises must be made, and some compromises will end-up being more conspicuous than others - and maybe not in a foreseeable way. I am just trying to visualize what you are trying to actually make. You are the one who can see how changes look when you try something. So, you are in the best position to make the choices about which compromises make the best appearance for the finished product.
After all, we are kicking around changes of only a few thousandths of an inch, which nobody would notice under normal circumstances. But, when we put the Optivisor on our foreheads or the macro lens on our cameras, we can see that just about every model has compromises. I think the goal is to make the overall scene avoid having obvious compromises when viewed as a model scene, rather than individual components. I think you are doing a really great job of developing this new product line, including how you seriously consider suggestions from all of us.
-
In the interest of moving along with the project and satisfying the broadest needs, something that is pretty highly detailed and offers enough variation to enable a modeler to nicely represent their chosen locale, are there any other suggestions you might have from your experience?
I think that the 9' mainline ties, especially when positioned next to 8.5" ties and being very road specific, will justify two offerings for mainline. 9' UP spec and 8.5' "standard" spec. Then 9"x 7" mainline and 8"x 7" branch and siding ties. Is the 8' branch and siding tie length important to make available? :| It seems like it might be. :|
Ive been doing some research on my chosen prototypes and it seems CP, Soo Line and Milwaukee Road all commonly used 8 foot 7x8 inch ties... I'm still trying to find drawings that show tie spacing and other details. It's amazing how much there is to learn about the subject and how little I actually knew...
I also noticed looking at turnout drawings that the spacing varied throughout the turnout, some parts needed more support then others it seems...
-
I'm not sure if that's enough of a problem to care about but should be weighed. Would raising that pocket really improve the concrete track appearance?
It would only be noticeable in close-up pics from certain angles, and even then it would be quite subtle. The real elephant in the room is the C55 railhead width, which is apparent from many angles and considerable distance, and hits like a wet fish in closeup pics. (Yes, I am harping on about that, just a tiny little bit :D.)
Ed
-
I also noticed looking at turnout drawings that the spacing varied throughout the turnout, some parts needed more support then others it seems...
Yes, ties are typically closer under the frog/guard rail areas. I also notice that in some longer turnouts the spacing increases in the switch area to allow for additional throw rods between the point rails. There is a lot of variety on the prototypes.
Ed
-
Ive been doing some research on my chosen prototypes and it seems CP, Soo Line and Milwaukee Road all commonly used 8 foot 7x8 inch ties... I'm still trying to find drawings that show tie spacing and other details. It's amazing how much there is to learn about the subject and how little I actually knew...
I also noticed looking at turnout drawings that the spacing varied throughout the turnout, some parts needed more support then others it seems...
Like I said... ;)
-
Like I said... ;)
Doh! :D
I remember reading your message, in fact it's what spurred my research, but I must have glossed over the Canadian roads using 8' ties part!
-
Ive been doing some research on my chosen prototypes and it seems CP, Soo Line and Milwaukee Road all commonly used 8 foot 7x8 inch ties...
Too add to this as far as I can tell Soo Line mainline track was 8 foot ties spaced at 22 inches...
-
Sounds good. Do you apply adhesive to a full 3' length of rail? Seems that would need a few things:
- A jig to hold the rail (or several rails) bottom-side up
Especially for reasons of expansion/ contraction as well as convenience of handling the rail, I lean to laying rail in 1' to 2' maximum rail lengths. This is especially useful for modules or layouts that will travel, even more important when they will be moved in cold weather. I realize that for many home layouts this won't be an issue but it also doesn't hurt.
There are two fundamental differences that I see as big advantages when laying rail with this guided method, functionally and even better, cosmetically. Typical flex track installations require rail joiners to align the rails as they are naturally trying to spring back to straight and will spring a little at the joint, introducing a small notch or kink if not aided by the joiners (and sometimes still have a minor issue even with the joiners). Some even solder these individual joints to beef them up. Then, at every joint where a joiner is used there has to be a several tie gap left to clear that joiner and finally, after completion of the track laying, individual ties have to be added back requiring sanding to be thin enough and then placed and glued under the joint. The final result of this effort is a thinner tie, an oversized, non-prototypical joiner, and a weak link in the system.
Because this tie bed has very accurate guides and then the rail is preformed to the curve, very accurate rail joints are accomplished and maintained without the use of joiners and all the fuss that goes with them. No gauges to hold alignment, no need to sand ties and fill in the tie voids, and a continuous run of cosmetically uniform track complete with all the never before available details.
This comes with a few different steps but not necessarily more work. You add a few steps at different points in the process, lose a few like those just outlined with rail joiners, so the net effort, especially with experience, should not be terribly different with a much finer result. And it should be way easier than hand laying track, again, with a cosmetically superior result. Time and experience will tell. :)
As far as holding fixtures for glue apply to rails, I'll have more for folks on that with some pics but it's basically a homemade rig, still being finalized. For straight rails, think of two strips of aluminum bar, 1/8" by 3/4" or 1", screwed down to a wood base with a few flat head screws (1" long?) in each. Place the two pieces parallel on the base, butted to each other, and match drill the aluminum and the base for two or three screws per side, based on length of the fixture. Clearance drill the holes in the aluminum strips. You can but don't even have to countersink them. In use, the rail head sits between the two aluminum strips leaving the foot shouldered and setting on the top of the clamp strips. Lightly tightening the screws will work to both hold the aluminum strips down but also, because they were match drilled to the base with no clearance, the taper of the flathead screws will tend to push them in against the rail, adequately clamping the rail. One side may be left tightened with the other serving as the clamping side. I may also suggest using angle for the one side and making a washer to fit the syringe needle that will shoulder against the vertical side of the angle, the washer sized to place the needle over the center of the rail. This will steady the tip and make the glue apply to the rail fast, centered, and so easy that even I can do it. 8) :D
For already curved rails, they will not be trying to flop over on their side because of the bend so I will just use masking tape, sticky side up (taped down at two ends), as many as needed to stabilize, and stick the rail head down on them. Just hand guided or I have an idea for another syringe needle guide that could be slipped on to the needle to steady the tip as you move along the rail. That is yet to be made.
- A way to grip and handle the rail after applying adhesive to the bottom
This is something that is evolving. All of the methods I've tried have worked well with varying degrees of ease but I think I've arrived at the simplest way if applying the glue to the rail, not the tie bed. Applying to the rail only may prove to be the fastest way, and may ultimately be the recommendation. It will surely be one of the options.
Because you will be cutting and fitting the rail, you will know where it starts and ends, so will know the extents of the piece you're working with. You can mark those two points so you know where the glue will be applied for this section. If applying in a continuous bead to the rail, stop the application an inch or so from the end leaving a point to grip. For that short distance, those few ties, carefully apply glue to those tie bed pockets. Lay the rail in, done. :) This is also where rails shorter than 3' will be easier to handle in every way with little or no reason not to lay them in shorter lengths than typical flex track. At least for me, this is an area where that old standard approach, for all of the reasons it made sense working with flex track, can be chucked out the window. :) :D
Applying the glue to the guide pockets will always be an option but will require a pretty steady hand. I have some syringes and tiny blunt needles on order that I suspect will make any dispensing step easier. It may even make getting the right amount into the guide pocket easy but that's yet to be proven. If so, that might be the preferred method. :| This could easily get in to the area of installer preference, which method they're most comfortable with, not a right or wrong. I will be adding to this as I go and will be a subject covered in a video. But again, even with my inexperience the first trial methods have all worked well. 8)
- Something to hold the rail in place while the adhesive cures.
Any ideas? For the last one at least, my thought is some kind of small (steel or brass for the weight) cylinder or block with grooves in it to hold the rail down and in gauge. Place one every couple of inches or so....
One feature of this is there's no need to hold the rail in gauge. The close fitting guides do that really well. One thing that is important, when starting the rail insertion, for the first tie that you're engaging, make sure that the rail foot is sitting squarely in the bottom of the pocket. This isn't hard to do but if not paying specific attention to this, it's possible to roll the rail over at an angle and... that'll never work. ;) :D
As far as weighting, it never hurts to weight but the initial grip of the Pliobond is pretty quick, almost instant. It continues to grow in strength over a week or so as the solvent continues to escape but the initial grip and the first few minutes in place probably gets the job done. What I have done when laying this is to first, holding the rail above the tie bed at about fifteen degrees, position the end of the rail in the first pocket, making sure it's engaged squarely with the rail foot (with a steel feeler gauge positioned at the butt end of the previous rail to set a gap) and then roughly align the rail with the rest of the run and slide your finger along the rail, seating it in each subsequent pocket. This pretty much takes care of itself as you go as the ties are close enough that the rail will naturally drop in, sometimes hearing a little click as each one drops in. Once in place you won't readily be able to move it as it has already gripped a bit. Once in place I will take the side of a toothpick and slide it along the rail top, exerting decent downward pressure with that finger, making sure that the rail is fully seated. A look at the end of the rail where it's seated in the guide pocket is a good idea, checking for the foot to be visually, squarely seated. That's pretty much it. 8) Over the next minutes up to hours, at your convenience, an additional toothpick rub down the rail length won't hurt. ;)
Once the next rail is in, especially if there is the slightest height variation (detected with a fingernail?), use the face of a flexible SS ruler (or equivalent) pressed down with your fingers over the joint, spanning both rails at the joint to assure their matched height alignment. I haven't found that to be needed often but if an inspection suggests it, do it or maybe just make it a standard practice. It can't hurt and might give some peace of mind that you're good to go. 8)
There is also a technique adopted from the decades of experience that hand laid track folks have with this glue, that the glue, freshly laid or years cured, can be quick cured, fixed, or adjusted with the heat of a soldering iron. If any adjustments of this nature are needed, a regular electronics type soldering iron rubbed over several inches in the vicinity of the area you are wanting to adjust will soften and allow the glue to soften and adjust. That can also be used to fix a joint that has popped (temp change?). Just rub the heated iron over the spot, pushing down until it has seated, hold until cooled.
This will all be covered in videos and with even more detail than can be covered in this way. It takes much longer to explain it than to actually do it. 8)
-
An update for projects in progress:
Parts for a paint mask to allow for painting before laying the bed are made and the balance of the rig is in process. It should be finished and tested this weekend. I know it's going to work slick but I have yet to test it, seeing if it knows that it works. :) This allows for painting the bed and then detailing the tie plates on the bench when you can position them at will and have ready access to them. Dry brushing and weathering could also be done on the bench, or after laid, user preference. 8) Of course, there's nothing that says the user can't just paint their track the way they have always done it and nothing says you have to paint individual tie plates, either. But now there are the details and the option to paint off the layout.
An assortment of new smaller syringes and blunt needles arrived today. They should make glue applying pretty easy. I've already done that with a syringe that was much larger but with a small (.020") hole and it was manageable. I expect with a smaller syringe and needle this will be even easier, more precise. Again, there will be experiments in the next few days and then report back.
I also ordered some weathered ME Code 40 rail. Until now I haven't used any nor seen any but feedback I've read on this is that the look is good but that making the solder feeder connections require scraping, exposing shiny metal, as well as the unsightly rail joiners that will still require some attention, making it a pain in the neck to use. Because this install method is unaffected by these issues, the soldered feed joints being under the rail, out of sight, and no joiners needed, I think it's worth a look. I may still prefer to paint the rail but this seems like it could be a viable option. It will be a week or so until that arrives. I'll report my findings. :)
-
Ive been doing some research on my chosen prototypes and it seems CP, Soo Line and Milwaukee Road all commonly used 8 foot 7x8 inch ties... I'm still trying to find drawings that show tie spacing and other details. It's amazing how much there is to learn about the subject and how little I actually knew...
It does seem that there should be an 8' tie length offered. That would be in branch and siding track, I'm guessing, and not on mains. Yes? :|
-
Here are some quick pics of progress. The paint mask tool is done. I took the pic to show how it was constructed but will add masking tape to the face before to use so that it can be changed as the paint builds up. The styrene masking strips can also be removed to clean paint build up. I expect that I will wipe them down every couple of uses, as needed, and certainly at the end of a paint session. I expect to use acrylics like Model Masters, no solvent paints. Solvent paints will not be able to be cleaned off and any excess buildup will pretty quickly have them not fitting down in the tie guides whereas acrylic can be cleaned off with an alcohol soaked paper towel, any strength, as long as it's done before the paint has fully cured ( a week or so? I've got a couple of test pieces drying now). The styrene masking strips can be replaced but it takes some wetting with acetone to get all of the styrene and CA out of the attachment pocket.
The arch in the frame and light elastic band tension keep the guides perfectly seated in the grooves and easy to load and unload the tie strips. It also keeps them from blowing around in the paint booth. ;) The length can be built to hold two pieces of tie bed lengthwise and as many as you want in width so if you have a huge project, go for it! :) I made this for my use and double length gets too long for my small paint booth. The width was scientifically calculated and resulted in 3.25" because... that's the size of the hardboard scrap I had laying about. ;) Same for the 5/8" square notched bottom pieces, carefully selected from the same scrap bin. 8)
The only pieces made specifically for this application are the masking strip end pieces as they have to be spaced off the platform at nominally the same height of the rail seat in the tie as well as the proper width for N scale. They also have a built in pin with head to keep the elastic band in place and pulling straight at the same height as the styrene strips so that it all lays flat, keeping the strips seated in the tie pockets. Those strips are glued in to the end pieces and the pocket has a bit of a strain relief in the design to not concentrate any flex from handling right at the joint. They should be handled with some care but aren't really that delicate. Those end pieces will be available in pairs for pretty small money, leaving the user to make up the rest of the rig with their own Evergreen .040" square and suitable arch frame. BTW, I almost made the frame from 1/2" foam. That would have worked, too. :)
Here's that piece:
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
And these two pics might give a sense of what laying some bed might actually look like as well as one with some of the tools used. Absent the install videos that will be part of completing this project, this might go a long way to understanding how it is accomplished, what all of the jibberish is about. ;) :D The white styrene square is used to help maintain a smooth flow of the curve while pinning. It's not glued in, just under the pin head and goes back into the toolbox to use another day once the tie base glue sets. It also affords a good visual to see that it's running smoothly, not kinked or anything else.
The curving of the bed is accomplished by snipping every other tie bridge piece on the outside of the curve with the sprue nippers. One snip, leaving the rest of the bridge piece in place, along for the ride. :) In the pic that may not even show that they're cut but the stuff won't curve when joined on both sides. But that double bridge is handy when laying straight track! 8)
[attachimg=3]
[attachimg=4]
-
It does seem that there should be an 8' tie length offered. That would be in branch and siding track, I'm guessing, and not on mains. Yes? :|
All ties, mains included.
-
It does seem that there should be an 8' tie length offered. That would be in branch and siding track, I'm guessing, and not on mains. Yes? :|
All ties, mains included.
Agreed, it would be all trackage including mainline... Most Soo Line mains would be "branchlines" by the standards of the big roads, but both Milwaukee and CP had pretty heavy duty trackage with 8 foot ties...
Still digging around and researching, hoping to find more info...
-
All ties, mains included.
OK. It'll be available as a standard offering at standard pricing, whatever that winds up being.
So far, all of these variations in size, spacing, or detail, concrete or wood tie, code 55 or code 40, will carry the same price. If there's a real oddball that doesn't warrant stocking but is a stock drawing, there may be a minimum order of 6' for that size. Manufacturers often refer to that as a "standard special". At this point I don't see any of them starting out that way but with sales history over time that may happen to some of the less popular sizes.
Thanks for your interest and taking the time to add your input. 8)
-
All ties, mains included.
Something just entered my mind. What tie spacing do they use?
20" mains, 22" branch, and 24" siding seems to be pretty standard with the variations visibly sufficient to detect the difference of one to another in a side by side installation without necessarily detecting what each specific spacing dimension is. The same holds for standardizing tie dimensions at 8" x 7" for branch and siding ties and then 9" x 7" for mains. Does anybody have any reason to disagree? Remember, an inch in 1:1 is only .006" in N scale. :|
None of this is yet etched in stone but I am trying to close in on some final offerings. 8)
-
Something just entered my mind. What tie spacing do they use?
20" mains, 22" branch, and 24" siding seems to be pretty standard with the variations visibly sufficient to detect the difference of one to another in a side by side installation without necessarily detecting what each specific spacing dimension is. The same holds for standardizing tie dimensions at 8" x 7" for branch and siding ties and then 9" x 7" for mains. Does anybody have any reason to disagree? Remember, an inch in 1:1 is only .006" in N scale. :|
None of this is yet etched in stone but I am trying to close in on some final offerings. 8)
Sounds good to me! I'm still trying to get the whole picture, but I think as a safe bet I would definitly be interested in Code 40, 8 foot ties with 20/22/24 inch spacing...
After a bit more digging, Milwaukee Roads mainline standard was between 2800 ties/mile (works out to 22" spacing) and 3200 ties/mile (works out to 19.8" spacing (Ive also read this was 19.5")
Canadian Pacific No 1 "mainline" ties were 7x9 No 2 ties were 6x8 both sizes were used on mainline and branchline trackage in different situations. I havent found a good source for tie spacing.
Edit: I found an article reference that listed CP ties per 39' section 24 mainline (19.5 inch spacing) and 19 secondary (24.6 inch spacing)
Soo Line Mainline tie spacing was around 22", there wasn't much high speed track on the Soo...
Unfortunately most of my library is packed for a move, but I'm pretty confident what you propose will work...
Edit: Keep in mind all of my references are from transition Era to 1970s sources, modern Era standards are quite different...
-
Sounds good to me! I'm still trying to get the whole picture, but I think as a safe bet I would definitly be interested in Code 40, 8 foot ties with 20/22/24 inch spacing...
After a bit more digging, Milwaukee Roads mainline standard was between 2800 ties/mile (works out to 22" spacing) and 3200 ties/mile (works out to 19.8" spacing (Ive also read this was 19.5")
For that 1/2" difference in spacing (.003" N scale), I think I will keep the standard 20" spacing. Does that seem OK? :|
Canadian Pacific No 1 "mainline" ties were 7x9 No 2 ties were 6x8 both sizes were used on mainline and branchline trackage in different situations. I havent found a good source for tie spacing.
7"x 9"x 8' sounds good for mains. For the branch and siding tracks where 6"x 8"x 8' is specified, I'm inclined to stay with the 7" height that's become a common size throughout (except concrete ties). So far this allows all of the different wood tie strips to be butted to each other without concern for rail height and the ballast will tend to mask the tie height anyway. Does this seem like acceptable thinking? :|
Edit: I found an article reference that listed CP ties per 39' section 24 mainline (19.5 inch spacing) and 19 secondary (24.6 inch spacing)
For a difference of 1/2" spacing (.003"), same as above OK? :|
Line Mainline tie spacing was around 22", there wasn't much high speed track on the Soo...
Unfortunately most of my library is packed for a move, but I'm pretty confident what you propose will work...
Edit: Keep in mind all of my references are from transition Era to 1970s sources, modern Era standards are quite different...
That's what we're working with for now. If the interest is there we can look at the modern versions at a later time. OK? :)
-
Absolutely... I'm not too concerned about a half inch here or an inch there, what you proposed earlier sounds like it will work quite nicely...
Just posting my data for my own benifit to give a quick reference to look back on... :)
-
Sorry about my absence...I took a fall while shoveling ice off of my driveway a few days ago and bruised myself up a bit. The consequence is that I haven't been able to sit for any length of time, while being able to stand and walk just fine. However, feeling better.
I'll be posting some close-up, completely in-focus shots of Mark's @narrowminded tie strips from the samples he's sent me tomorrow, then building a short length of roadbed to scaled-down prototype dimensions, painted, weathered and ballasted...probably posting that on Thursday or Friday....assuming my butt continues to heal at its present rate!
Although C55 rail isn't proportionally close to the heaviest rail used by any prototype I'm modeling, I still like the visual difference in height using both C55 and C40 together offers, delineating rail weight difference between sidings/spurs and mainline trackage.
Hopefully Mark, you can pretty easily and quickly produce some tie strips for heavy-traffic mainline track that will accept C55 rails?????? My order would be for 9' ties since I'm doing mainline U.P. trackage under Big Boys/Challengers/Turbines. :D I've got about 30' of double-tracked mainline and an equal amount of siding/industrial spur trackage planned for my next big U.P. LDE...and although I've got old Rail-Craft C55 and C40 flex in my stash I can use, I'd prefer to use your superior product.
I also have a hunch there's good market for your tie-strips for use with C55 rails...maybe more than for C40 rail.
OUCH!...time to get outta this chair!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Sorry about my absence...I took a fall while shoveling ice off of my driveway a few days ago and bruised myself up a bit. The consequence is that I haven't been able to sit for any length of time, while being able to stand and walk just fine. However, feeling better.
I'll be posting some close-up, completely in-focus shots of Mark's @narrowminded tie strips from the samples he's sent me tomorrow, then building a short length of roadbed to scaled-down prototype dimensions, painted, weathered and ballasted...probably posting that on Thursday or Friday....assuming my butt continues to heal at its present rate!
Although C55 rail isn't proportionally close to the heaviest rail used by any prototype I'm modeling, I still like the visual difference in height using both C55 and C40 together offers, delineating rail weight difference between sidings/spurs and mainline trackage.
Hopefully Mark, you can pretty easily and quickly produce some tie strip for heavy-traffic mainline track that will accept C55 rails?????? My order would be for 9' ties since I'm doing mainline U.P. trackage under Big Boys/Challengers/Turbines. :D I've got about 30' of double-tracked mainline and an equal amount of siding/industrial spur trackage planned for my next big U.P. LDE...and although I've got old Rail-Craft C55 and C40 flex in my stash I can use, I'd prefer to use your superior product.
I also have a hunch there's good market for your tie-strips for use with C55 rails...maybe more than for C40 rail.
OUCH!...time to get outta this chair!
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
Thanks for the update. Sorry to hear you busted your... ;)
Yes, I can do code 55 strips and have already done the 55 to 40 transition strips for coming off a code 55 turnout or just transitioning from one to the other. One related question that you may be able to answer, what would the total height from tie base (bottom) to top of code 55 rail be? The total thickness of the turnout?
Edit add: I'm referring to the dimension of one of your hand laid pieces. 8)
-
Thanks for the update. Sorry to hear you busted your... ;)
Yes, I can do code 55 strips and have already done the 55 to 40 transition strips for coming off a code 55 turnout or just transitioning from one to the other. One related question that you may be able to answer, what would the total height from tie base (bottom) to top of code 55 rail be? The total thickness of the turnout?
Mark, I'm thinking prototype practice, which would basically be C55 and C40 ties and tie plates being identical except for the width of the slot the rail goes into...the only differences in tie height or tie plate height should be the difference between mainline heavy traffic and siding medium/light traffic trackage...but I don't see any need to mess with the tie plate details except for possibly spikehead height and total tie plate width. This would mean the total overall width of the tie plate would also be wider by the extra width of the C55 rail foot, the exposed portions on either side of the rail foot being identical in dimension to C40 tie-strips. Also, if the edge of the C55 rail foot is higher than the edge of a C40 rail foot, then the spikeheads should be higher by that difference to be visible.
This means that the bottoms of the ties of C40 track would be higher than the bottoms of the ties of the C55 track it's mating up with by about .011", and there would be a short and very shallow grade from C40 to C55 track. If I were laying both C55 mainline and a C40 siding, I'd shim the bottom of the C40 ties with about a 1.5" long thick paper or cardboard shim so that portion of the C40 railhead run even with the tops of the C55 rails (maybe your C55 to C40 transition piece takes care of this...I haven't looked closely at your design yet), using runny CA with Accelerator to fasten that 1.5" of C40 ties coming off the C55 ties to the shim...then let the track form a shallow grade of about 3 to 6 inches...filling the air-gap between the bottoms of the C40 ties to the cork roadbed with gap-filling CA, setting it off quickly with Accelerator. Prototype transitions between sidings, spurs with mainline trackage always have a short grade down to the non-mainline trackage, to make sure cars won't roll onto the mainline. If there was a doubt about that, they install a derail, so the offending car will derail away from the mainline. That said, I don't see a need for both C55 and C40 track to have their railheads exactly the same height after the short grade from C55 to C40 trackage since the prototype doesn't worry about it.
That make sense?
Edit: You're thinking turnouts! This is good. The thickness, from the bottom of my PCB turnout ties to the tops of the railhead is irrelevant because I lay the bench-made turnouts onto the sanded cork roadbed after I lay appropriate wooden or (lately) Styrene ties between the PCB ties. The PCB ties are quite a bit thinner (meaning height) than scale-sized ties, so I use gap-filling CA to glue the turnouts to the cork roadbed gluing them only at the PCB ties, letting the turnout rest freely on the wooden/Styrene turnout ties, the gap-filling CA flowing under the air gap between the PCB ties and the cork roadbed before I apply Accelerator to cure the CA.
Painting the unballasted turnouts, then ballasting, essentially glues the foot of the rails to the wooden/Styrene turnout ties, but I don't worry about it since they're pretty well socked down to the cork roadbed anyway due to my generous use of PCB ties at stress points on my turnouts...meaning under the frog, under the point rail heels, in the middle of the closure rails, on either side of gaps, and on either side of the throwbar/point rail toes.
I install my C55 turnouts so the height mates up with Rail-Craft/Micro Engineering C55 flex...so, that would be a total railhead to bottom of tie dimension of .105" for Rail-Craft flex, and from .1065" to .1085" for Micro Engineering, making sure I didn't measure where they've embossed their brand name on the bottom of the ties.
Truthfully, I don't mic my turnouts either while building them on the bench or when I'm installing them on the sanded cork roadbed. Prototype track has so many dips and little ski-jumps in it, that my trackwork is more even than most prototype rails scaled-down, and for my handlaid PCB C40 Park City Branchline trackage, I purposely make it crooked (side to side), but keep the tops "eyeball" even for reliability and good electrical pickup.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
I also have a hunch there's good market for your tie-strips for use with C55 rails...maybe more than for C40 rail.
You mean something like this? https://www.shop.cvmw.com/N-Scale-Mainline-CVT-3001.htm
Ed
-
You mean something like this? https://www.shop.cvmw.com/N-Scale-Mainline-CVT-3001.htm
Ed
Ed @ednadolski ...Nope. I mean better than that. After looking at tie dimensional data, and looking at several engineering diagrams of different tie plates, and spiking patterns, the CVT C55 wooden tie strips don't look that great to me. No spikeheads, improper tie plate details...I mean WAY improper from anything I see on the actual rails or in scale drawings.
Marks are way better looking.
What? Me picky??? :ashat:
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Something I just discovered. :facepalm: Because it was a huge part of the focus, NMRA Standards S-3.1 (fine scale) and S-3.2 (standard scale) that specify details for turnouts including gage at the frog, flangeway clearances, and such were being used, basically no problem. They are both very similar in the gage spec, within .001". What I hadn't looked at recently was standards S-1.1 and S-1.2 which are general track standards. Those are a LOT different, a much looser specification.
What happens is this. The turnout standards for the gage at the frog either S-3.1 or S-3.2, are within the tolerance for track gage but are much tighter than they are for just track. For turnouts (Proto and Fine S-3.1 and Standard S-3.2) the gage dimensions are fairly tight for either and in fact, for fine scale, you're allowed .001" more at the maximum and .002" less at the minimum. Standard turnout spec allows .359"/ .352" gage at the frog. Proto allows .360"/ .354". This is all as it pertains to turnouts. The Flangeways are a little tighter for fine scale as they use thinner wheel flanges. After digesting all of this as it applies to performance in either, it becomes obvious why these numbers and tolerances were chosen for smoothly performing track work. The biggest thing is, because of all that's going on to get a wheelset smoothly through a turnout, especially at the frog, the tolerances have to be pretty tight. Evidence the most likely trouble spot on layouts, the turnouts. :(
But then you get to basic track (S-1.1 and 1.2) and here's where the big diversion is allowed. Standard S-1.1 which is proto or fine scale, the running track gage remains the same as the flangeways in S-3.1 (.360"/ .354"). But in S-1.2 which is standard scale spec, the gage allowance goes all of the way to .367"/ .353". Fine scale has a total allowance of .006" whereas Standard scale has a total allowance of .014". :o That's a LOT!
Because of this focus I had on turnouts for my all of my specs, track too, I was referencing some Atlas numbers on pieces I had as being out of spec. With a review of the S1 specs that's not true. Sorry, Atlas. :facepalm: I was seeing numbers of .264" or .260" as being wrong whereas they are totally within NMRA spec for standard track... as long as it's not at a switch frog. ;)
But this also points out that what I'm making, standard issue, meets NMRA Fine Scale specs for the track and very close for turnouts, the primary exception being flangeways. For Fine Scale turnouts the guardrail position may need adjusted a little tighter due to narrower wheel flanges but absent a trial, I think there's a good chance that they could run them anyway, with no adjustment. And if there was a desire, I should be able to furnish true Fine Scale turnouts. If chosen, it would take a total commitment for all of your rolling stock though because standard wheels will just miss running reliably through a true fine scale turnout/ flangeway.
Bottom line, Fine Scale installations may be an option for the matter of requesting it. The track already meets it. 8) The turnouts, technically not especially because of the flangeways, but some adjustments could be made to the design to make them true Fine Scale. :)
-
Mark, I'm thinking prototype practice, which would basically be C55 and C40 ties and tie plates being identical except for the width of the slot the rail goes into...the only differences in tie height or tie plate height should be the difference between mainline heavy traffic and siding medium/light traffic trackage...but I don't see any need to mess with the tie plate details except for possibly spikehead height and total tie plate width. This would mean the total overall width of the tie plate would also be wider by the extra width of the C55 rail foot, the exposed portions on either side of the rail foot being identical in dimension to C40 tie-strips. Also, if the edge of the C55 rail foot is higher than the edge of a C40 rail foot, then the spikeheads should be higher by that difference to be visible.
This means that the bottoms of the ties of C40 track would be higher than the bottoms of the ties of the C55 track it's mating up with by about .011", and there would be a short and very shallow grade from C40 to C55 track. If I were laying both C55 mainline and a C40 siding, I'd shim the bottom of the C40 ties with about a 1.5" long thick paper or cardboard shim so that portion of the C40 railhead run even with the tops of the C55 rails (maybe your C55 to C40 transition piece takes care of this...I haven't looked closely at your design yet), using runny CA with Accelerator to fasten that 1.5" of C40 ties coming off the C55 ties to the shim...then let the track form a shallow grade of about 3 to 6 inches...filling the air-gap between the bottoms of the C40 ties to the cork roadbed with gap-filling CA, setting it off quickly with Accelerator. Prototype transitions between sidings, spurs with mainline trackage always have a short grade down to the non-mainline trackage, to make sure cars won't roll onto the mainline. If there was a doubt about that, they install a derail, so the offending car will derail away from the mainline. That said, I don't see a need for both C55 and C40 track to have their railheads exactly the same height after the short grade from C55 to C40 trackage since the prototype doesn't worry about it.
That make sense?
I think so. ;) What my adapter covers is aligning the code 55 rails on the inside (gage) and the rail top, with the Code 40 rail. To transition from an Atlas turnout and I suspect very close if not the same for ME or handlaid based on typical hand laid tie heights, the difference will be about .011", maybe .005" less for hand laid. I am building this correction into the transition piece, much as you described. That was why I was asking what one of your hand laid measured from the bottom of the wood ties to the top of the rail. And while we're at it, do you (or anybody) have an ME turnout that you could measure? Again, total height from bottom of ties to top of rail.
The transition piece has branch tie spacing (may need others) and is a total of 3 1/8" long. It has an extra spike (2) on the outside rail per the UP specified 4B spiking pattern for 40' of track past the turnout ties leading in and out of a main track turnout. The first two ties under the code 55 rail and the next two after, under the code 40 rail (4 ties total), have a .011" riser built into the bottom of the tie which then transitions down at .001" per tie to the standard code 40 height. This results in a total height transition length of 2" from the start of the transition piece, with the first two ties under the end of the turnout rails and the first two ties under the code 40 rail remaining at the elevated height. The balance of the 2" transition zone (1 1/2") is where the actual height change takes place at .001" per tie, down to the normal code 40 height. The rest of the length of 1 1/8" is at normal code 40 height but continues with the extra spike on the outside of the rail adding up to the nominal 40' (41.5') of rail with the extra spike. This transition piece will get you close if not perfect for matching the rail heights but should always be checked and any bottom sanding or shimming made. It can also be curved anywhere desired using the normal method of snipping tie bridges on the outside of the curve.
Edit: You're thinking turnouts! This is good.
Painting the unballasted turnouts, then ballasting, essentially glues the foot of the rails to the wooden/Styrene turnout ties, but I don't worry about it since they're pretty well socked down to the cork roadbed anyway due to my generous use of PCB ties at stress points on my turnouts...meaning under the frog, under the point rail heels, in the middle of the closure rails, on either side of gaps, and on either side of the throwbar/point rail toes.
I install my C55 turnouts so the height mates up with Rail-Craft/Micro Engineering C55 flex...so, that would be a total railhead to bottom of tie dimension of .105" for Rail-Craft flex, and from .1065" to 1085" for Micro Engineering, making sure I didn't measure where they've embossed their brand name on the bottom of the ties.
The nominal height that the transition will mate to is .100" so for your turnouts on .040" ties should be very close and for the Railcraft or ME track a .005" +/- (one thickness of masking tape?) ;) may be required. But you should be close and the transition smooth! 8)
-
have an ME turnout that you could measure? Again, total height from bottom of ties to top of rail.
Mark,
.115" for the total thickness
Ties measure out at .060" thick
-
Thanks, @rodsup9000 . That's helpful. 8)
-
@ednadolski or anyone familiar, I have a question on the transition ties from wood tie turnouts to concrete ties. Do they come away several ties in wood after the turnout or do they immediately change to concrete right at the turnout? I'll again use an Atlas turnout as a reference for this question. The reason I ask is it may be a little busy with concrete tie trimming required if I was to remove the last two turnout ties, those that are relieved for the rail joiner, instead of taking the wood ties away from the turnout by maybe three ties (five if you count the two that replace those removed from the turnout) and then carrying on from there in concrete. I ask because I'm starting on a transition piece to mate Code 55 turnouts to Code 40 concrete track.
I realize Ed, that you're more inclined to stick with Code 40 throughout, turnouts too, but this is for filling out some of the obvious options that are likely to surface if this is to be a generally suitable option for all users. 8)
Edit add: I found this: https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@customers/@industrialdevelopment/@operationsspecs/@specifications/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_std_0220.pdf
Apparently you DO extend wood ties more than I thought. It's here, 24 ties past and details.
-
Started on frog machining fixtures today. I've got data for #4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and #12. Next fixtures will be for the point rails. That is forcing me to make up my mind on the throwbar design. :| I'll do the #4 first, getting all of the functions, and then start on the details. For anybody interested, any time in the next few weeks would be a good time to speak up on cosmetic details that would be nice to have. 8)
I may have a couple of tie spacings, 20" and 22", and still need to set the tie cross section. I'm leaning to 9" x 7" with 9' width and/ or 8.5' width. I think 9' will be more prototypical, especially for mainline ties but branch could maybe be 8"x 7" x 8.5'. And folks are used to 8.5' (or less) with units like Atlas code 55. For me, this is pretty exciting stuff. 8)
I'm trying to get a good throw bar design that still fits a reasonable cost. :| I'm not at all excited about just soldering a PCB board to the points. Too many failure stories go with them and for all of the details I've got covered that's one that just isn't right. I'm not sure that I've actually seen anything that's really nice and the more I struggle with it myself the more I realize why. ;)
Not much else to report yet. Code 55 to Code 40 transition ties and branch and siding ties are really about ready to go but for the final packaging, pricing, and instructions. Best to wait for those. Concrete ties need the bridges lowered, wood transition ties from turnouts (code 55 and code 40 need them), and any final feedback from @ednadolski but I think he's generally pretty happy with the basic ties. 8)
-
I've been able to procure some of the elusive Smith and Sons ballast, and put together this quick test piece:
(https://i.imgur.com/mSN8YvM.jpg)
- First thing I notice is how much darker this is compared to the AZRM, particularly when glued (I used alcohol with diluted ModPodge Matte). I waited a couple of days to see if it would get any lighter, but it seems that this is it. I do think it is a pretty good color for my prototype.
- This is the #60 screen size which to my eye looks very close to the correct scale size. I further sifted it with a fine screen mesh (I wish I had the screen size, but I don't... it was something from the plumbing aisle) to remove the smaller 'fines'. That ended up separating out roughly 50% of the product. Some ballasts start looking like a sort of aggregate glob of melted sugar at these smaller screen sizes, but this stuff retains its 'granular' look even without magnification.
- The tie color is basically flat white with just a small trace of flat black added. I used hand-painted Model Master acrylic which I think creates a bit of a texture. It's very subtle, but I like it over a smooth/plastic sort of look. I might try adding a small trace amount of the MM Sand, just to bias it toward a color tone rather than keeping to a pure black & white. Of course, it will all change anyways when weathering is applied.
(Edit - I note that the lighter color helps to disguise the stair-step aliasing, esp. in pictures.)
- The clips are hand-painted. I need to get better at this. The RR Tie Brown serves for this purpose, but for a 'new track' look the color needs some hint of red added.
- The webbing/tags between the ties are evident esp. when viewed more from the side. These are very hard to hide even with the finer grade ballast while still avoiding interference with rail placement. Glad to hear that @narrowminded is making them lower (about half the current height should do... and they can simultaneously be wider to preserve strength; a concave/arched cross-section seems ideal). Really they only need to be on one side at all, the other side can completely remove them. I am working on a longer sample and I am going to clip them away entirely on one side - not difficult, but not really a necessary sort of task to have to do.
- The rail is the ME weathered. I cleaned the underside of the base with fine sandpaper before gluing it down with CA. I also cleaned the rail head with #800 sandpaper.
- I haven't tried superelevation yet, but I bet these will look really good with that ;)
Cheers,
Ed
-
I like it @ednadolski ! 8) You take the detailing to an ultimate level!
I will get you some new ties with the bridges lowered. I'll work on that today. :) Also, as far as super elevation, would there be any point in building that into the tie base? That could be done and then offer a transition piece to go with it, smoothly transitioning from flat to the super elevation. Would you have a dimension to raise it in mind? I would guess about .015" across the tie span but... :|
One thing I'll suggest trying is this refillable paint pen. (And @robert3985 , this is the pen and colors I was talking about a few days ago.) There are probably other brands but this is what I found, tried, and really liked. Unlike Sharpies this has a 1mm hard tip. I sanded the tip to a chisel point, then slightly blunted at the tip, and with the capillary action of the acrylic ink found that it flowed over the raised portions pretty controllably. And the ink seems thin enough that it isn't prone to filling in fine details. If the tip gets overloaded, blot it on a towel. Excursions off your desired point seem to wipe off readily, although on a white background I don't know that it won't stain a little and may need touched up. I've only used it on the wood ties that were dark brown and wiping/ blotting errors wasn't a problem. I also cleaned the tip with acetone to change colors and it cleaned out near perfectly. I'm still new to this myself, seeking something to work for this project. I think I'll find other uses for this pen. :)
https://www.michaels.com/daler-rowney-fw-mixed-media-small-1mm-paint-markers/10552974.html
And then there's the ink. Specifically Acrylic Ink, not water based ink. They make both and package them in the same style dropper bottles so give an extra look if buying off the shelf. The acrylic is permanent and withstands alcohol, water, etc. It takes a little time to dry but measured in minute or less, not much longer. Just enough time to blot an error. ;) I used it straight from the bottle, not diluted.
The colors I bought were Red Earth (rust), Burnt Umber, and Indian Yellow. I have only tried it on Rail Tie Brown painted wood ties and suspect it tended to darken the appearance slightly so I used the Red Earth with some of Indian Yellow to lighten it just a little. The ratio was around 4:1, red earth (4) to yellow (1). The red earth color wasn't bad straight from the bottle but was harder to see against the rail tie brown. A drop of yellow didn't fundamentally change the color but lightened it just a little, what was needed adjacent to or over the rail tie brown. With a light gray base the Red Earth may seem a little bright and need muted, I don't know, but if needed I think that a drop of the Burnt Umber might accomplish that. Or maybe just using the Burnt Umber straight from the bottle if you wanted a darker brown. I think those pieces would at least get you started. I also think that you'll find many more uses for these when detailing. 8)
https://www.michaels.com/daler-rowney-fw-acrylic-artists-ink/10518940.html
-
That looks fantastic @ednadolski ! It's almost enough to make me want to start over. :o
-
That looks fantastic @ednadolski ! It's almost enough to make me want to start over. :o
Thanks, but please don't do that! I've "started over" way too many times, it's much better to have something completed!
Ed
-
I will get you some new ties with the bridges lowered. I'll work on that today. :) Also, as far as super elevation, would there be any point in building that into the tie base? That could be done and then offer a transition piece to go with it, smoothly transitioning from flat to the super elevation. Would you have a dimension to raise it in mind? I would guess about .015" across the tie span but... :|
Thanks Mark, that pen sounds like a good option. No need tho to hurry on changing the ties; as for the superelevation that's tricky since the amount of height (and the transition length) could certainly vary considerably.
Now, I've go to go build something more than just a couple of inches long... :ashat:
Ed
-
Thanks Mark, that pen sounds like a good option. No need tho to hurry on changing the ties; as for the superelevation that's tricky since the amount of height (and the transition length) could certainly vary considerably.
Now, I've go to go build something more than just a couple of inches long... :ashat:
Ed
OK, Ed. I'll make the lowered tie bridge and they will be the "Ed Nadolski Signature Series" with only one side bridged. What Ed wants, Ed gets. ;) :D
I'm still inclined to make the standard offering with both bridges with the idea that it will be easier to handle for the average human ;) but with your experience and mad skills I'm sure you'll make anything work. We even have evidence in this thread. :)
Thanks for your efforts and feedback. It's been very helpful. 8)
-
@robert3985 and all. For those sections where you want to "bury" the ties in the dirt, what if there was a tie bed made that was just much thinner? :| A transition piece could be made to enter and exit those pieces while maintaining rail alignment. Maybe made in just siding bed. :|
-
@robert3985 and all. For those sections where you want to "bury" the ties in the dirt, what if there was a tie bed made that was just much thinner? :| A transition piece could be made to enter and exit those pieces while maintaining rail alignment. Maybe made in just siding bed. :|
Mark @narrowminded , when doing industrial/yard trackage...I'm not really consistent when "burying" the ties. Most of the time, when a stretch of track get its ties buried, it's because of a build-up of material is raining down on it, such as dust and dry concrete in my Ideal Concrete Plant area, or cinders in my Echo Yard, and my future Ogden/Riverdale Yard. This means that in yards, sections of it are not buried, and sections of it are, and sometimes, because of repairs made on the track, or modifications...a very short section will be exposed normally, or maybe one side of it will be...with the tie-ends sticking out...and only a few feet further, everything is buried again.
Industry trackage, at least in my case, is serviced by UP MacArthurs (Mikados), and later by USRA Light MacArthurs...and later by GP-7's and 9's, so the ties and spacing aren't considered "light traffic"...since the motive power originally wasn't just switchers, but mainline locomotives. As in yards, portions of the trackage will be buried, and other parts will be exposed...in the case of industrial trackage, maybe verrry lightly ballasted, with the ties nearly fully exposed. Spacers between ties on your tie-strips that can be easily removed after gluing down by just snipping them off, will aid greatly in achieving that "airy" look of old-ballasted, ill-kept industrial trackage.
This means that in my case, thinner ties and transitions wouldn't be practical because the buried and exposed sections will be achieved by art rather than planning...and I am going to celebrate the scale tie-ends your strips have by showing them whenever it's appropriate.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Mark @narrowminded , when doing industrial/yard trackage...I'm not really consistent when "burying" the ties. Most of the time, when a stretch of track get its ties buried, it's because of a build-up of material is raining down on it, such as dust and dry concrete in my Ideal Concrete Plant area, or cinders in my Echo Yard, and my future Ogden/Riverdale Yard. This means that in yards, sections of it are not buried, and sections of it are, and sometimes, because of repairs made on the track, or modifications...a very short section will be exposed normally, or maybe one side of it will be...with the tie-ends sticking out...and only a few feet further, everything is buried again.
Industry trackage, at least in my case, is serviced by UP MacArthurs (Mikados), and later by USRA Light MacArthurs...and later by GP-7's and 9's, so the ties and spacing aren't considered "light traffic"...since the motive power originally wasn't just switchers, but mainline locomotives. As in yards, portions of the trackage will be buried, and other parts will be exposed...in the case of industrial trackage, maybe verrry lightly ballasted, with the ties nearly fully exposed. Spacers between ties on your tie-strips that can be easily removed after gluing down by just snipping them off, will aid greatly in achieving that "airy" look of old-ballasted, ill-kept industrial trackage.
This means that in my case, thinner ties and transitions wouldn't be practical because the buried and exposed sections will be achieved by art rather than planning...and I am going to celebrate the scale tie-ends your strips have by showing them whenever it's appropriate.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
Thanks, Robert. Makes perfect sense. 8)
-
- A jig to hold the rail (or several rails) bottom-side up
- A way to grip and handle the rail after applying adhesive to the bottom
Here you go @ednadolski . I think this will work. It really grips the rail solidly so will work on the bench and one can be left on to use as a handle. If the rail is painted already the plain metal might tend to scratch it but I suspect some masking tape could be put in those clamp jaws to protect the rail. Here's a link to the clips on Amazon where you can get a good picture of them or purchase some. You'll probably see how the shape works pretty well for this purpose. It would be handy for code 55 as well. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07BFPG2JX/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1
Use as many as you like on the bench and leave one on as a handle for installing. And a quick video:
/>
Edit add: After scrutinizing these clips I've added a step to prepping them as a tool, not a paper clip. ;) There's a burr on the inside edge of the clamp face, an artifact from the stamping of the part. I held them open and filed the burr with a flat jeweler's file and then finalized with some 600 or 1000 grit paper. That finish will be way less prone to scratching the rail in handling and with care, maybe enough. It will certainly cut down on scratches. I'm anxious to see how it acts on the ME factory weathered rail which is on order but hasn't arrived yet.
Which brings to mind, does anybody have a recommendation for a paint color for the ME weathered finish to touch up cut ends, machined faces, or just assembly scratches? :|
And after some experimentation and this method of gripping the rail, an easy Pliobond application method is pretty well sorted. Still need to make the guide tool but for volume laying it should be pretty slick. For short runs, like a diorama, diluted Pliobond (50% or so) applied with a small paint brush will probably be the easiest. And while these pieces have been developed for this project they will be handy tools/ methods for doing any kind of hand laid track using Pliobond for rail attachment. There will be a video (in a few weeks?) with all of the gory details. ;)
-
Great idea, @narrowminded , I'll have to try those out ;) Looks to me like it should work w/full length rail too.
If scratches are a concern, then tape sounds like the best option, or perhaps if there is something simillar made of plastic.
Ed
-
Great idea, @narrowminded , I'll have to try those out ;) Looks to me like it should work w/full length rail too.
If scratches are a concern, then tape sounds like the best option, or perhaps if there is something similar made of plastic.
Ed
One of the features of the metal clips is that the grip face is thin enough that that it doesn't extend beyond the rail foot profile. It stays nested just beneath the rail foot face allowing a guide to pass over the clamp area unobstructed and the angle of the clamp face seats it solidly in the rail web, getting a pretty solid grip on the rail. That was one of the issues that kept rearing its head as I was contemplating how to do this. Those clips were one of those duh' moments. :D It's almost as if they were designed just for this. 8) I fear that a plastic clip would be too thick and extend beyond the foot face.
I think that taking a moment to remove the burr from the grip face and making sure that they are aligned squarely to each other, allowing them to seat squarely as the video demonstrated will be worth the effort over the long term, adding a very useful tool to your toolbox. And it's another one of those things that can be harder to describe than it is to do it.
-
I took a break from my drawing machine late last night and decided that I needed to see what some paint and rusty tie plates might look like on a piece of this wood tie track. This is a piece of siding track. It isn't the best, actually a rush job and something I'm new to but it shows real potential. 8) I have to say I'm pretty happy with how this is going and it really makes me anxious to see what @robert3985 will do with this stuff. 8)
This piece was already painted Krylon Camo Brown so I did a light tan wash, then some wood grain scratched with a track saw and/ or a piece of coarser toothed serrated metal tape cutter retrieved from an empty Scotch tape dispenser, then some India ink wash, then the tie plates colored with Red Earth acrylic ink. The rails were given a coating of Neolube for a convenient and fast darkening of the rails. The Neolube worked for this quickee but it's not the way to go for a real installation. I definitely need practice but I'm seeing great possibilities! This stuff's gonna' look goood! I'm happy. 8)
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
[attachimg=3]
-
Looks interesting, tho it's a little hard to see much detail in contrast against the white background.... do you have one of those grey photo cards?
The end-on shot looks good, esp. the middle where you can really see the texture in the foreshortened perspective. Some dry-brushing with a light driftwood tone would bring out the detail too.
The side shot really shows off the webbing. The dark color on that does help to hide it when covered by ballast.
Ed
-
Looks interesting, tho it's a little hard to see much detail in contrast against the white background.... do you have one of those grey photo cards?
The end-on shot looks good, esp. the middle where you can really see the texture in the foreshortened perspective. Some dry-brushing with a light driftwood tone would bring out the detail too.
The side shot really shows off the webbing. The dark color on that does help to hide it when covered by ballast.
Ed
Those are full height bridges from the first run, flush with the top rail seat. They will be dropped on the next run.
I used that pen I mentioned for the tie plates. It goes pretty good. 8)
-
Another progress update. 8) One of the methods of applying glue when hand laying track is with a syringe. This tool is now ready and is designed to steady the syringe in alignment with the rail foot when gluing code 40 or code 55 rail. There will be a video with the whole story and demo in use.
There will be at least two suggested ways to apply Pliobond and possibly a third. That's still in the works. One way is diluted with acetone and applied with a small brush. That's a legitimate way and may be easiest when doing small jobs. For larger jobs or just by user preference, there's the syringe. That can be hand guided if you've got a steady hand and good eye or I designed this guide tool to help the user to keep the tool lined up with the rail foot. This tool and the rail bender were designed as aids when laying this new tie bed, especially in bigger projects, but either of these tools are useful for any hand laying of track, not just for this tie bed. 8)
The glue guide uses standard 1cc syringes with screw on needles (Luer Lock type), not press on, and two different SS blunt needles. One is an 8 gauge for filling the syringe from the glue bottle and the other is a 20 Gauge for applying the glue. The Pliobond is too thick to draw the glue from the bottle with the 20 gauge needle (.035" OD). They are to be reused, cleaned up with acetone when the job is finished.
Here are some pics. Full video of the use will be in a few weeks, as we get further along.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
[attachimg=3]
And the glue guide is made so it can be hung on the side of a shot glass with acetone in it, keeping the needle submerged. If left in the air the glue will start to cure within a minute or so and will mess with the delivery of the glue. Parking the needle in acetone keeps it dissolved, ready to go when you are. 8) This is a handy tool.
[attachimg=5]
[attachimg=6]
And this is one of the rail bending tool. It was posted a while ago when I made it for the start of all of this, my Nn3 track.
[attachimg=4]
More to come. :)
Edit add: This is a video of that rail bender at work. Some will have seen this. />
-
And here's another update. @ednadolski , here's your revised tie bed! :) I think it's final. 8)
Bridge pieces are lowered and moved to the center, staggered right and left of C/L, offset .010" (.020" total) so you can actually see the line for alignment. All else is the same as it was. 8)
Here's your poor pics but they do show the bridge changes:
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
Is that what you had in mind? 8)
-
That seems like a really nice solution to the bridge problem.
-
That seems like a really nice solution to the bridge problem.
Thanks, Gary. :) I was and still am a little worried that the single bridge will be harder to manage when gluing the bed down but I think the bridge up the middle instead of to one side will be the more manageable of the two options. I should try a few pieces myself and see how it acts as well as get the feedback from Ed after he's had a chance to fool with it some. If it proves to be more manageable than I'm anticipating that may be the way to go for the wood ties, too. :| And worst case, I can always make either, customer's choice. Right now I'm up to about 12 variations of wood ties in just N scale accounting for mains, branch, and siding, then code 40 and code 55, then a couple of transition adapters, then a few different tie lengths. Double or single guides would double that! :facepalm:
One thing that the single center bridge might have going for it with the wood ties is the possibility of arbitrarily setting a few ties here and there slightly askew, snip a bridge out occasionally and set the spacing slightly different, things like that. The guides will stand a rail coming through at a slight angle, about all you'd want anyway. The biggest concern would be keeping the guides in line with each other, not getting a few ties' guides wandering out of alignment. But that could be assured by using the recommended .040" styrene piece or a piece of rail bridging a few of the guides ahead and behind the one being pushed around. I think that I'd want to lay them straight then, before the bed glue has dried completely, come along and adjust a few. That was the original plan all along even with the double bridges. :|
I am totally OK with arbitrarily setting the ties offset from each other as the previous photos show and they don't develop a pattern that visibly repeats. I am concerned that that could happen with angled ties and odd tie spacings, visibly showing a repeating pattern on longer runs. I also think it could make laying the bed, especially in curves, harder to gauge by eye, not readily knowing if the visible misalignment is the result of a screwed up install that may have the rail not dropping in as it should, or what's built in to the track. :| It might be better to lay it then go back with your nippers and a piece of .040" styrene or rail to assure guide alignments are maintained on any you're moving around, and then randomly move a few as you see fit. That wouldn't show a repeating pattern and could be made more, or less perfect, depending on the desired effect.
I'll have to try some of these things out and prove if these concerns are legit or hooey. The whole idea here is to make really nice track with a level of detail previously unavailable but... that can still be installed by mere mortals. ;) Getting this off the ground is a LOT of work. :D
-
That's pretty cool.
One afterthought, does the staggered bridge cause any kind of offset in the ties on a curve? Would there be a slight "stutter" in the curve of the rail? Just curious due to the varying fulcrum the staggered bridges would provide. I might be overthinking...
-
That's pretty cool.
One afterthought, does the staggered bridge cause any kind of offset in the ties on a curve? Would there be a slight "stutter" in the curve of the rail? Just curious due to the varying fulcrum the staggered bridges would provide. I might be overthinking...
Many flex tracks have two ties joined and then one broken for the flex. It works and the slight variations don't show. Now, if you make a 2" radius, that will show, but... :| :facepalm: We'll see how it goes.
I'm not worried that it will work but want to see which style is the most installer friendly, single bridge as shown here or double bridged as shown previously and snip at the turns. 8) My own concern is that the single bridge will be harder to manage while getting it into position. :|
-
Mark have you thought about adding tie spacers on the end shaped like a lollipop to interlock into a same shaped feature on the bottom of the last tie so one can stack many out in a row (symmetrical in both vertical planes)?
Essentially you could lay all f the ties for the layout, paint them, and lay pre weathered rails after.
-
And here's another update. @ednadolski , here's your revised tie bed! :) I think it's final. 8)
Looks really good! I was just laying down an ~18" section of test track and I cut away *all* the tags on one side to see what that was like... yes, it was as tedious as it sounds, wouldn't want to do a whole layout like that ;)
I'm finding it is a bit tricky to put strips down into a smooth+consistent large radius curve or easement by hand. Next time I will try laying down a styrene strip or some other kind of guide on one side.
I'm also thinking to ballast *after* installing the rails, since even with very careful gluing there still is a tendency for some of the small grains to get stuck in the guides.
Ed
-
Looks really good! I was just laying down an ~18" section of test track and I cut away *all* the tags on one side to see what that was like... yes, it was as tedious as it sounds, wouldn't want to do a whole layout like that ;)
Fortunately, you will be the last one confronting that issue. ;) That's covered for all future versions whether double bridged or single bridged. They are low enough and even the double bridged are low enough and, being nested directly under the rails, easily hidden by the ballast. And if there's a spot where you want no ballast, track badly in need of maintenance, the bridge can be removed entirely after it has been laid and the glue cured. Snipped out with a sprue nipper/ rail nipper. That will already have to be done if you're dropping feeders from the rail bottom instead of the side, at each point where the feeders drop directly off the bottom of the rail between two ties. And the only reason I specify a sprue nipper when they look and work the same as a rail nipper is because a rail nipper may be too thick to fit between the ties. Of course, either nipper could be ground thinner at the nose. :)
I'm finding it is a bit tricky to put strips down into a smooth+consistent large radius curve or easement by hand. Next time I will try laying down a styrene strip or some other kind of guide on one side.
A guide butting to the end of the tie will always be good, especially with concrete ties, as they are very uniform in length and side to side position. With the wood ties and their staggered end look that may not work so well.
BUT, what I think you are experiencing is what I described from the start about the bed without rails being very floppy and hard to manage without the support of the bridges. I have laid the very first version of this, some Nn3 track, with little trouble and is the source of my double bridge design and snipping recommendations for generating the curves. And the double bridge design was a revision after I tried track with bridge pieces omitted, ready to curve.
With some of that double bridged test track that I sent, if you would try what I found to work for me I think you'll be surprised and will get a very satisfactory installation. I used double bridged track and when it came to the corners I used nippers and snipped every other tie bridge, on the outside only. This left all bridges on the inside intact and on the outside it left one bridge between two ties, then a snipped one, then the next two bridged, then one snipped, then two left joined, then the next snipped, and so on. I made just one snip with the nippers leaving the snipped bridge piece in place as it was doing no harm, along for the ride. Then, once generally placed and the radius reasonably set to my guide lines, as a final step to check and adjust the bed, I used a .040" styrene square inserted into the guides on the inside only, visibly checking for a smooth radius. The styrene square afforded a good visual as well as mechanical aid, assuring a smooth radius. As a final step you could also set it in on the outside if you want to be doubly sure but the nature of the design will have that side following the first side by default. I found this method to be very manageable. 8)
With the test pieces you have I will beg you, please try this method. Yes, I know the bridges, specifically the height, bug you to no end, but the final product has that adjusted so will not be a future problem. 8) And a single snip with nippers on every other tie (not cutting them out completely with your exacto knife) is just hard to imagine as an issue especially when it makes the remaining steps so much easier to manage. 8) Even Mikey likes it! ;) :D
I'm also thinking to ballast *after* installing the rails, since even with very careful gluing there still is a tendency for some of the small grains to get stuck in the guides.
I totally envisioned painting before to install the rails as an option but it hadn't occurred to me to ballast, too. :) With the concrete ties and their need to have a little ballast on the tie tops you have a uniquely difficult ballasting job, getting just the right amount to lay on the tops without falling back into the space between. What might be worth a try is to go ahead and ballast as you might do normal ties, not worrying about the ballast needed on the tie tops, and then, once that's completely cured, go back for a second round to top off the ballast with the rigid support of the already placed ballast on a surface aligned plane. That might work well for the concrete ties. If you try that, let us know how it went. 8)
-
Well, it looks like we're going to have wood grain, too. 8) This was the only thing that was bugging me a bit after getting so many details worked out. I had been thinking about how to get a decent look that would print and still photograph well and have been experimenting over the last few days. I reached the point where I'm on to it, am sure it can be done, and will be spending some effort on that, flushing out the details. Then it's on to completing all of the variations and then SWITCHES. :scared: Another big lot of work. :)
These are terrible pictures, as usual, of the three test ties I've been working with. The pics don't do this justice but this grain is looking pretty good! I think a wash and weathering and it will really look good! After this, I think I can call the appearance features and methods pretty much resolved and will get to flushing out the many variations.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
-
Well, it looks like we're going to have wood grain, too. 8) This was the only thing that was bugging me a bit after getting so many details worked out. I had been thinking about how to get a decent look that would print and still photograph well and have been experimenting over the last few days. I reached the point where I'm on to it, am sure it can be done, and will be spending some effort on that, flushing out the details. Then it's on to completing all of the variations and then SWITCHES. :scared: Another big lot of work. :)
These are terrible pictures, as usual, of the three test ties I've been working with. The pics don't do this justice but this grain is looking pretty good! I think a wash and weathering and it will really look good! After this, I think I can call the appearance features and methods pretty much resolved and will get to flushing out the many variations.
Mark @narrowminded ....Hey, that's lookin' REALLY good! The woodgrain was the last detail touch these needed! Happy to see you've done such a great job on it! Thought I'd include a photo of Rail-Craft C55 and their "wood grain". Yours look exponentially better!
Photo (1) - Photo of old Rail-Craft C55 flex as a comparison to Mark's tie strip details with a coat of Krylon Camo Black:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/14/1200-260120143849.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=14590)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48446.0;attach=33197;image)
Wow, it prints that way with the woodgrain, very impressive! 8)
Ed
-
Yours look exponentially better!
Definitely!
Ed
-
Thanks all. This has been a lot of work especially drilling down on all of the details. That's ongoing and with real results. One is the gluing. I have made a third glue apply method work, stumbled on while brushing some short test pieces. It really works well but now I have to go back at it to get a good spec/ ratio for thinning the glue. I was experimenting, adjusting the mix by eye and how it acted so don't have a for sure defined ratio. But once that's arrived upon, using a syringe for an accurate measure will make it a first time, every time, proposition. It will be doable and repeatable and makes the gluing pretty darn easy. A very neat, quick, and effective apply. I'm loving it. 8)
My ME weathered rail arrived. It looks pretty good and pretty black. ;) I don't know if I'll like that for all installations but it's certainly an easy option especially when not dealing with rail joiners and top of rail foot power feeders. And the spring paper clip showed earlier works excellent as a handle to orient the rail for gluing and handling and to position it in the bed once glued. And with the burrs in the clip "jaws" cleaned up it has a solid grip, is tucked under the rail foot in the rail's groove so is out of the way for gluing whether with the syringe, a brush, or the "new way", and all without marking the weathered rail finish! 8) That was a concern that I'm happy has been put to bed. I will hope for the same with painted rail but I'm suspicious that will require a full paint cure, maybe a week or so, if that's to be. :| I won't be surprised if it works or if it gets minor scratches. Worst case, it may need some minor touchup once completed. I'll take that. 8)
The 1mm pen tip ground to a chisel point and using acrylic ink has proven controllable for tie plate painting. It's tedious but with an optivisor it works surprisingly well and can be done on the bench before to lay. At least that's good. It's also not an etched in stone requirement that all of the tie plates must be painted but boy, once they're there, it's hard to just leave them in the tie color. :D
As far as the wood grain, I'm still putzing with it but now it's past the can it be done stage and into the realm of how strongly it should show, how deep the graining should be, and the like. Naked eye could use a lot, closeup photographs could use less. What's the balance? I'll probably seek a consensus from the experts on this. 8) :) OK, not a consensus but at least some opinions. :P :D
I'm really enjoying this and it's making me really anxious to get started on turnouts. I have to finish all of the machining fixture drawings so I'm ready to go when the shop time becomes available, anticipating the first or second week of February as of now. :) It looks like 20 or so separate fixtures will get me started. :o :D
-
Progress is being made. I have been educating myself on the gory details of turnout design and the relationship between the many variables. It's pretty cool once you get into it and start to understand those relationships and how one dimension effects many. Setting the basic lead, point rail lengths, heel spread, how those two relate to each other, and then the resultant radius of the curved closure rail, and so on.
The NMRA standards list has a decent principles and specifics write up of prototype as well as modeling compromises for turnouts (TN-12, 90 pages) and that publication was very helpful in getting a grasp on the whole relationship picture. One of the things I've learned from this is the not completely intuitive benefit of code 40 rail when designed from scratch applying all of the design principles. It affords a more gradual point rail transition which then allows for a shorter, more prototypical point rail length (11'), which then allows more space for the curved closure rail affording a measurably larger radius. This will make for a very smooth running turnout that starts with a less harsh transition angle at the point rail and then a shallower radius all of the way through the curved rail up to the frog. The biggest factor that affords all of these follow on beneficial dimensions is the code 40 rail being much closer to prototype rail dimensions which then allows you to start with a smaller heel spread dimension. Because the rest of the dimensions develop from there the resulting benefits are realized. It's pretty cool. 8)
Also, in order to take full advantage of these benefits it is all the more critical that all of the components are produced to precise tolerances. Most of the component dimensions have multiple effects on other key dimensions and (in technical speak) it can all go to ***** in a hurry. :( ;) :D
This is a layout picture of the key parts of a code 40 #6 turnout that demonstrates some of these benefits when compared to the NMRA design guidelines which are adjusted from prototypical to be useable all of the way up to code 80. This is all utilizing the same lead controlling dimension as is recommended in the NMRA paper but all else designed specifically to the code 40 rail. Starting at the switch rail, the length is a very prototypical 11 feet (per sample UP drawings and further confirmed in the NMRA technical paper TN-12 in the prototype description, not the adjusted modeling dimensions). Because the heel spread is able to be reduced due to the more prototypical thinner rail head dimension, this length can be prototypical which is more than 5' shorter, while reducing the initial angle change by over 1/3 degree. This is an improvement in both dimensions. What follows is more space left in the lead (per NMRA spec) as well as from a shallower starting angle, so the closure rail radius is increased to 22.6" radius instead of the NMRA model adjusted recommended 18.9" radius. This results in a C/L track radius for this #6 turnout through the closure curve of 22.4"+ vs: 18.75"+. A radius increase of 3.65". 8) That's a LOT and can only help to have a smooth running train as well as forgiving in rolling stock that it can accommodate.
This benefit will be reduced with code 55. How much? I won't know until I actually draw one but a measurable amount of it will be used up due to the rail head dimension difference and all of the resulting adjustments required. The assembly length as dictated by the lead dimension remains the same as the NMRA recommended dimension but there will be benefits as outlined as the train passes through this turnout that's specifically designed to the actual rail dimensions.
This knowledge as well as resulting specific dimensions that I knew would be coming with the designs was what was missing on my part when I was trying to jump ahead with my fixture designs that caused such a kerfuffle earlier in the thread. ;) :D It turns out that I probably will be good with one fixture for the point rails as the angles I'll need will fall within that needed for another standard prototype point rail dimension of 16.5'. After that, should I need it, I may have to make another fixture and the angle will aggravate the already not so easy fixturing/ gripping problem. But prototype drawings from the UP show a #20 turnout with only 16.5' point rails. 8) We'll see when the specifics are investigated. :)
Here's the general rail layout as described above. The o'all length dimension was placed arbitrarily and will likely change but the key dimension, the lead length (3.544"), point of switch rail to theoretical frog point, is exactly per the NMRA spec. As such it could be fit as an assembly anywhere that any other NMRA speced turnout would fit. If executed as shown it is very accurate to the thousandth, fairly prototypical, and would run sweet! 8)
[attachimg=1]
-
Still working on fixtures. There's a lot of them. 8)
-
For the full range of switches I'll be able to make, Code 40 and Code 55, it looks like there will be 34 or so different fixtures for machining and soldering frogs and point rails. Those drawings are finally all done, cutters and material should be ordered tomorrow or Wednesday, and actual machining should commence next week. 8) I still have a few odd pieces to go.
One is the throw bar. I think I have it figured but need to make a few and see how they look and most importantly, confirm how well they work. It will be hinged and I'm pretty sure I'll be able to have a pretty robust part while still maintaining a more prototypical appearance in both scale and style. I almost have to have one together to really confirm the performance but it sure works sweet on paper! :D
I'm starting with N Scale but will be doing Nn3, Z, and probably HOn30. It's a matter of time and filling in the details. It can also be prioritized by interest. :) Anybody with a small project feeling frisky? :D
This is quite an undertaking but has been fun so far and due to the precision of the pieces should have outstanding performance while setting a new bar for turnout appearance. The precision of all of the components is the key. Mated with the tie bed this should make for a pretty outstanding installation. It's my hope to have some turnouts for test and show sometime short of a month from now. Track sooner, especially if the machine time suffers any delays.
-
Just a quick update. Fixtures still in progress. 8)
Got some shop time but had to be interrupted by "real" work. :( The mill I am using is in big demand at this shop. I'm now looking at access in the 1st to 2nd week of March, hopefully to finish what I've got designed so far. BTW, future one off needs and fixture maintenance can be done in my own machines but to make the volume of fixtures I'm doing to build a whole line, with all of the precise, small details, many at angles and radii, would be cruel and unusual punishment to a skilled worker. There are presently 40 sets, mostly of rail positioning/ gripping clamps with precisely matching tops and bottoms to them, about 80 individual precise pieces to be machined with small, important angles, radii, and other details to all of them. While doable, it would be an absolute nightmare to do this many in basic manual machines. Also, not able to be accurately produced in just any typical CNC due to miniscule details and tiny cutters needed to produce them. As I had previously mentioned, this is just the right combination of skills, circumstances, and access to some very expensive machines that are allowing this to happen. If it hadn't fallen into place by happenstance it wouldn't be happening at all. :D
The delays are always frustrating but they have also had some benefit. I was rushing some of this just a little based on that shop's schedule and that's never a perfect scenario. There are always some issues with this intricate stuff that you think your design has covered (it worked great on paper) ;) but you haven't actually run it yet so aren't absolutely sure and often there is at least some minor tweeking needed on something once this many new fixtures are put into service. It's life in the machine world. ;)
Due to the schedule delay I am using the opportunity to make a few prototype rail holders in my home machines where specific concerns existed and testing their performance. Areas of concern often have "fixes" already in mind if the concerns prove to be an issue. Having this extra time allowed me to take two of the rail gripping fixtures that had specific concerns (one that then effected the next step) and found that a tweek was in order. Those few minor adjustments made in the design now will save the steps of re-setting up and modifying later. In the end, these refinements discovered and fixed now may actually have the final production not delayed much if at all. 8) The old adage, "Never time to do it right, always time to do it over". :D
And there are still a few fixtures to be designed and machined but they were always planned to be done in my own manual machines. Especially the bending fixture for kinking the rails as required. Guardrails, the kink at the start of the radius stock rail, pre-bends in one direction then machining back to straight to prevent the total removal of the web support on frogs and closure rails, and the like. These will all be precisely pre-machined so that fit and tolerance can be maintained and assembly proceeds as assembly only (yes, inspection as you go), not repeated fitting and filing until it looks OK. That's fine for one offs and if the time to final fit or to get basically one that "works" takes an hour, who cares. In this venture, it matters. Precisely hand working every fit will drive a person NUTS if done in quantity. :facepalm: And the precision of the components will assure a nice running turnout first time, every time. Add some prototype details to the bed and WOW! At least that's the plan. 8) :D
Track additions have been placed on the back burner for the moment as they are largely figured out but all of the design variations need to be filled in. That will be filler work as I go BUT... if anybody has any immediate needs or a particular version priority don't hesitate to send a PM. I could respond pretty quickly if there was an immediate need.
Wish me luck. 8) Pending access time I should have real things to show in a few weeks and over the next month and beyond. :)
-
Thanks for the update. I am not turning blue, because I have learned not to hold my breath for ventures like this, but I am eager to see the results, when you get them done. Good luck on keeping up the good work.
-
Per a request I've just added #14 Frog machining and soldering fixtures to the list. Easy now with the batch of similar fixtures so may as well have this one, too. A quick check of the NMRA standards and then Fast Tracks tools show that they both stop at #12's. It's not likely to be a standard offering but maybe a custom.
Long switches bring their own set of concerns with long, floppy rails but I don't have the experience yet to really know how bad it will be to work with them. I may be overly concerned. :| Also the frog gap keeps getting bigger and may be a concern. The way I'm making my frog and point rails with the webs fully supported at the ends should allow for the narrowest points therefore the smallest gaps possible but they still continue to get larger as the frog number goes up. What has crossed my mind is, has anybody ever made movable frog points in N scale? I'm aware of them in prototype but not up close and personal, like what frog size might be the conventional size to start considering moveable points. :) Quick search attempts haven't yielded much on this specific info.
Edit add: I think I'll start a thread in the standard N and Z forum for the movable frog question.
-
An update with something to show. No, the fixtures aren't done yet but chip will be flying this Thursday. 8) To start, there are 32 rail gripping/ positioning fixtures for the range of Code 40 and Code 55 turnouts, 9 each from #4 thru #14, ignoring #11 and #13. Then 3 Frog soldering fixtures with 3 sizes per fixture, and a precision rail bending brake with adjustments for precise angle and precise position. There will be others made in my manual machines for assembly, hinge soldering, etc, for all of the little detail stuff and assembly rigs. I'm getting anxious. :)
Meanwhile, I made a rail grip fixture set to test the design approach for the tiny code 40 rails and also on the Code 55. This will be used for frog and especially closure rail preps where the angles get very shallow and a thin point is most desirable but difficult to accomplish with the rail head and foot overhanging the web. It's one of those things that has huge effect on the rest of the design and if not executed pretty near perfect results in gauging fluctuations, the need to relieve the stock rail head for the fatter point as is common for most commercially produced turnouts, or jockeying the nose with a taper inside and out, trying to get the nose slim enough, but then ending up with a gauge fluctuation by whatever the inside face taper is.
What I've measured on Atlas turnouts is .015" point at the closure rail point and on some hand builts I have that were made using a point filing tool they are .010" but also had a bit of an inside taper at the very point, showing up as a slight taper at the very end, getting a little fat within the first 1/8" of the stock rail contact point. Meanwhile, that closure rail from the point all of the way to the heel block (hinge) is supposed to be perfectly straight, holding gauge with the opposing straight stock rail. Any bends in either one at this point show up in gauge fluctuations. With some tweeking and work with the gauge this can be adjusted somewhat and kept within a generous NMRA tolerance for this position in the turnout. But it's still fluctuating wider or narrower. This is where the wide treads on our models are saving the day, taking up the non-prototype fluctuations. For all of the turnouts that work well, the real tight tolerances are at the frog and guard rail positions but the more accurate the turnout is throughout its many dimensions, the smoother it will run. Those who have hand laid and with some practice and care have already experienced this. :)
With that said, my point rails will be/ are all machined, accurately positioned in the machine and maintaining perfectly straight cuts, not filed with all of the inaccuracy that introduces, even if tolerable, and with a full, straight, vertical point with the finest point that can withstand use. Also, while the stock rail foot will need to be relieved there is no filing of the mating stock rail head to tuck a fat point in to get a functional dimension. (There's more reason for this too but enough for now.) ;)
The machined test piece pictured below is for a #4 turnout. The point is .002", about as fine as it can be while still being strong enough. 8) The plan is .003"/ .002" as the standard point thickness dimension. It is aligned perfectly straight and parallel with the opposing stock rail, holding extremely accurate gauge throughout the assembly, and fully supported as the web is not removed. The rail starts the process by precisely bending the point end of the rail outward to move the face of the thin web outward in the direction of the gauge face of the rail, and then the now bent rail head and foot are precisely machined back to the original straight plane but now with the web fully supporting the head vertically. With the rail head now back to perfectly straight on the gauge face and with the web fully supporting the rail head, the rail is placed in a second fixture where the angle is precisely machined from the back side at the proper angle and to the extra fine point that the solid web can support.
This process will be the same for the frog points which allows them to be very fine points. With that fine frog point it will allow for less unsupported gap in the rail transition across the gap left where the flanges pass on the opposite route. That gap is an unavoidable turnout design problem (unless you make a movable frog point) ;) and it gets worse as the frog angle increases and is further aggravated by a less than sharp frog point. By prepping the end so that the web is supporting all of the way to the point and then precisely machining the components this gap can be kept to the minimum possible for each size.
Here are the pics of the Code 40 machined test part. The ones being held were photographed through a magnifier light to get a view of the .002" point.
[attachimg=3]
[attachimg=4]
-
Work is progressing on the rail machining fixtures but boy, it's like pulling teeth to get this done. :| Much is the legitimate scheduling of time in the machines I wanted to run these in, for ease of producing so many pieces. And then, with this virus business, one of the main customers of that shop has just ordered any and all parts that the shop can produce over the next couple of months. Unheard of. :|
So what I've gotten done (a week ago) is all of the clamp bodies are machined for 56 matched sets of rail clamping fixtures, all held to extremely tight tolerance (.0002" in key dimensions and no worse than .0005" anywhere), and now ready for the final clamping groove details. It is hard to say when I can get access to those machines again, probably some months, so I am now bringing several of those blanks home to complete grooves for a few turnout numbers in my home manual machines. This isn't the end of the world but it is much more time consuming to set these up at the accuracy desired but in the end, the results are the same, just much more time consuming.
I have to get a few done so I can prove out their effectiveness to keep the project moving forward. Trial runs of parts are normal when developing something this involved but (temporarily?) losing the access to a very efficient CNC machine that lends itself perfectly to the fixture features I needed to machine in these blocks has slowed down the process. It doesn't stop it but it slows it pretty dramatically. I will keep posting progress.
Meanwhile, here's the box with just the rail clamp fixture bodies, sitting on the shop floor, with 56 perfectly executed and matched sets of fixture bodies (plus some spares?), ready for the final steps that make them actually useful for the intended purpose. ;) These are used for accurately machining the assortment of angles and features for all frogs and point rails #4 thru #14 (skipping #11 and #13). There are more fixtures to be made for other details but not of this type. This picture evokes a mixed emotional swing between thrilled and frustrated. :D
[attachimg=1]
-
Well... wow.
-
A quick update. Because I've not been able to use the CNC machine of my choice due to that shop being buried in work I've resorted to machining them old school on my home machines. The accuracy doesn't suffer but the schedule sure does. :facepalm: It's much more time consuming due to the multiple, involved setups per fixture. And many long passes with a .015" cutter at depths over 2x diameter doesn't make it any easier. ;) What's helpful to the setups is having those pictured rail machining blanks already run and accurate to the extreme. It makes what would have been pure torture little more than a pain in the a$$. ;) But it's all for a good cause! :D
-
Anyone know what happened to narrowminded?
He was very active here but his profile says he has not been on since beginning of may?
I watching this thread with excitment hoping to see where all this was going.
But it seems to have fallen flat and and narrowminded disappearing with it?
I hope he is okay as I always enjoy reading his post as he is allot like me i thinking and technique .
Hoping he chimes in just to let us know he is okay?
-
Oh dear, May 16th is a long time ago. :?
-
I PM'd him a couple of days ago, but haven't heard back yet. I hope all is well with him and his family.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
I am guessing no on has heard from him this is a real shame .
I hope he and family are okay!
-
It's concerning that no one knows, hope we hear soon.
Ed
-
Hmmmm...now over three months since last time he was on. :?
-
I spoke w/Mark recently: no worries, he's simply busy with other things and hasn't had much time to post lately. 'Life happens' to us all ;)
Ed
-
I spoke w/Mark recently: no worries, he's simply busy with other things and hasn't had much time to post lately. 'Life happens' to us all ;)
Ed
Phew!!! EXCELLENT NEWS! :lol:
-
Thanks for checking and reporting, Ed. The way things have been going this year, it was a real worry to not hear from Mark for so long with no warning.
-
This is good news indeed!
Thank you for the update.
-
Sorry for the absence but I've had a lot on my plate. My absence started when I got sick for a couple of weeks, fever too, although not severe. I was pretty sick but don't think it was bad enough to be Covid, just don't know. Then did a fairly extensive consulting project for a shop that I still do design and management projects for. The rest of the time was cleaning up a lot of loose ends at home including getting my truck that had been sitting for two years, wondering whether I should keep it or get rid of it, ready for sale. A good piece but sitting so needed battery, brake pieces, a couple of ball joints, and all of the usual maintenance aggravated by sitting. That's gone. Then did four wheel brakes and rotors on my van for a six week trip out west. Sitting now in Davenport Iowa on the first night out on that trip, taking time to look at the net, making this post. Will see northern California and many points between before it's over. Then it's back to home, a couple of track only sport bikes to get rid of, and back at the Nn3 and track and turnout projects. As a warning or just information, I expect you'll be seeing more of me now. :)
-
Good to see you back! I had covid about 2 months ago and it was nothing but a mild cold for me. I'm in the high risk category being diabetic. If it wasn't for the pandemic nature of things right now, I wouldn't have even thought about staying home from work or not leaving the house. For a lot of people you don't really know you have it unless you get tested.
I'm excited to to more purges on the code 40 rail project.
-
Really glad to hear from you, Mark! We were all worried about scenarios that start with "I got sick..." Really glad to hear yours came out OK, and it was other life issues that caused your absence here. I think we can all relate to some current events that are putting some (or all) of our modeling efforts on back burners.
-
Revisiting this after a bit of a hiatus. I've made some tweaks to the design mostly around the guides/clips, but (as this pic shows) I'm still working on figuring out a way to paint the clips that is easy, reliable, repeatable, and quick (and doesn't require magnifiers). I have an acrylic paint pen coming, so we'll see how that works out.
I also tried printing this batch in a resin that is a mix of the Anycubic white and grey. It's kinda close to the ME ties, tho still not quite right. In the pics the color just sort of washes out. However the resin color to my eye still has a bit of a translucent quality, so it seems to me that these are going to require painting in any case just to get the base color (and then the clips too of course).
I'm also thinking to use these with the weathered ME rail. It is an extra step to clean off the weathering from the underside of the rail, so that the Pliobond will hold properly (and so that wired can be soldered, tho I'm not fully convinced that that is entirely necessary either. More options to try out... ;)
Another thought it to try to build the track without any rail joiners. For curves it seems like a good idea to pre-bend the rail with the FastTracks roller bender tool, or something similar.
(https://i.imgur.com/WWnBi61.jpg)
Cheers,
Ed
-
A few more quick pics of the revised ties, with some paint, weathered rail, and ballast. I used Tamyia Insignia Gray for the concrete color, which to my eye shows up a bit better in pics than my previous color (seen in the short sample strip). I still have to get better at painting the clips, but the acrylic paint pen seems like the best approach so far.
Ballast is the Smith and Sons Ohio Limestone #60, but I sift out some of the larger and smaller (more dust-like) pieces.
The step-wise aliasing is more evident in these top-down closeups, but is virtually undetectable in-person from a more typical viewing angle.
(https://i.imgur.com/1t92RbB.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/pdV9LKe.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/7aiTuyc.jpg?1)
Ed
-
I think this is looking great Ed. The aliasing doesn't seem too objectionable, even in the most revealing photos.
I may have missed it, but how to you imagine the work flow going when it comes time to lay the track through a curve? I assume these strips are of order 6" each, so you'll need to have a bunch of them properly aligned to form a typical curve. Do you do that with the rail in place, or before?
It seems like you should be able to draw in a slight overhang to the clips so that the rail ever so gently snaps into the bed. Not enough to hold it for good, but enough that you could pop the rail in place while the tie glue is drying, giving you the chance to fine tune the track line. I imagine you could also do this with the Pliobond already dried onto the base, so all you have to do in the end is heat cure it. But I may be throwing out ideas for a problem that doesn't exist. :P
-
@GaryHinshaw , one strip is a bit over 4" long (28 ties). Currently I can print 7 strips with one pass on the printer, tho I think I can increase that if I update some of the slicer settings.
My thought is first to spray paint them (primer then top color) with some styrene strips in place to keep paint out from between the clips. Then, Pliobond one 3' section of rail over some strips (about 9) and heat-cure it into place, on the web side of the strips, to make something like a flex track but with a single rail. Then the track can be installed and easily curved as needed. After it sets, the second rail can be installed and Pliobonded into place. (wiring will of course have to be attached at some point in the process -- at least one feeder per rail so as not to rely on rail joiners, if any.)
For curves I am also thinking to print a variety of the tie strips that have an additional, raised strip under the web, to create a superelevation. The strip can further be varied in thickness along the length to make transition sections. What superelevation do you use on your layout (I recall hearing something like 0.015" or 0.020"), and what transition lengths do you use?
Ed
-
Ah, good idea: single rail flex sounds like a winner.
My superelevation is indeed .020" via styrene strips placed more or less under the outside rail. If I recall correctly, I cut the strips to 1.5" lengths (for no great reason) and space them end to end on ~2" centres. I managed the transition with one strip of .010" and one of .015", then the rest with .020". That has worked very well. If I were printing my own ties, I doubt I would bother with adding superelevation to the them. It just makes a lot more inventory to manage, especially if you have transition sections at intermediate heights. The strips are simple, and it's probably going to be a fair amount of work just to print enough normal ties for the layout.
Now that I think of it though, I have no idea what your plans are for this track. Is this for a full-sized Loop diorama? Something else?
-
Is this for a full-sized Loop diorama?
No definite plans at this point, tho I am thinking I really do need something to run my sound units on. ;)
I do in principle have space for a 100% scale Loop in my current basement, tho I really doubt that I have the time and energy to actually build something of that size (the thought of painting a +150 square foot backdrop is daunting, to say the least). Plus, I do not want to make something immovable or that could not fit into a (potential) future space, should that ever be needed (again). Something that fits into say a single garage bay could be practical, tho that could be no more than about 2/3 of scale size max.
I put together this mockup a little while ago.... what do you think?
Ed
-
I put together this mockup a little while ago.... what do you think?
I like! Keep going. :lol:
-
My superelevation is indeed .020" via styrene strips placed more or less under the outside rail. If I recall correctly, I cut the strips to 1.5" lengths (for no great reason) and space them end to end on ~2" centres. I managed the transition with one strip of .010" and one of .015", then the rest with .020". That has worked very well.
Thanks Gary. IIUC then your transition length is 4" total? And there is no 0.005" 'step'.... any reason you passed on that?
I like! Keep going. :lol:
Thanks! I do want to be sure that I can build the kind of track I need before I really commit, but this (and the C40 turnout) seems about there. Plus, I need all the encouragement I can get ;)
Ed
-
Thanks Gary. IIUC then your transition length is 4" total? And there is no 0.005" 'step'.... any reason you passed on that?
'cause I didn't have any .005" stock handy. Is that a good reason? :lol: In practice, the code 55 rail makes the transition from level to .010" pretty smoothly, so it doesn't really seem necessary. (Code 40 could be a bit less forgiving there.) The overall transition is more like 5-6" by the time you go from fully level to .020". It has been trouble free on my layout, and to be honest, hardly noticeable unless you're really looking for it...
We'll be happy to keep encouraging you!
-
I have done N scale superelevation using 4 layers of 1/4" wide masking tape, with a transition of about 12". It never occurred that I could compress the length to only 4" without ill affect.
-
I have done N scale superelevation using 4 layers of 1/4" wide masking tape, with a transition of about 12".
Which lends itself almost perfectly to the 4" length of the 3D strips: 1x each of 0.005", 0.010", and 0.015".
The transitions on a strip could be tapered along the length for an even smoother slope. That would mean having a left and right handed version of each transition, which seems to be getting into the overkill zone. That said, something like the Loop has so many curves and transitions (and very little actual tangent track aside from a few short places), and recalling my past (feeble) attempts at SE with tape and/or styrene strips all had rather pathetic outcomes, so having the SE built into the track itself does seem to have some degree (no pun) of appeal.
The time to actually print the strips doesn't seem like it should be much affected, as the total length of the track would be the same.
(IDK what the actual SE is supposed to be for the 10-degree curves on and around the actual Loop, but the 2"-3" seems about right. It doesn't really matter all that much since for a model it's basically a matter of what 'looks good').
Ed
-
Simple is good. After messing with SE off and on for about four years (same method as Gary), I came to the conclusion that incorporating 0.005" units didn't accomplish much, at least with C55. Here's an S-curve with 6" of 0.010" transition to 0.020" at each end. It's still subtle.
Not a valid vimeo URL
-
It's still subtle.
Simple and subtle are exactly what I am looking for :)
On my little Loop layout, I built the Walong siding 1/32" lower than the parallel mainline. The effect was very hard for most folks even to notice, but to my eye it still was enough to see something which was subtle even on the prototype.
In your vid there, I think the camera angle make is easiest to see the SE effect on the first curve after the bridge.
Ed
-
Nice video Mike.
Here is a quick & dirty shot of the S curves through Allard, just upgrade from Tunnel 2:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51321833090_08d7729107_b.jpg)
If you look closely you can make out the SE transitions, and you can also see how the foreground ties sit above the cork by .020".
-gfh
-
How does the SE look with equipment on it?
-
It's pretty subtle:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51325679487_30f7bc1ace_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/gp/25264038@N04/0amiCh)
-
It's pretty subtle:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51325679487_30f7bc1ace_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/gp/25264038@N04/0amiCh)
Subtle but effective. Really looks good, Gary. It's much easier to notice with tall rolling stock on the curve.
-
Subtle, even with double stacks. These pics are one with vs. one without the SE (leaving it as an exercise to the viewer to decide which is which.... sorry the DOF is not very good).
(https://i.imgur.com/ExT5B2f.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/D6DwUhR.jpg)
Ed
-
I'm going to guess that the closer curve has the SE, based on what appears to be a slight lean in the first well car. But either way, it's subtle.
As long as you're thinking about tapering the ties, it occurs to me that you're in the unique position of being able to do the proper thing of lowering the inner rail rather that raising the outer rail. That might be fun to experiment with.
[BTW, what's with the 1:1 scale covered hopper ladder in the background? :P]
-
you're in the unique position of being able to do the proper thing of lowering the inner rail rather that raising the outer rail.
Interesting, I never knew it was like that. For modeling that would mean that the tangent track needs the 0.020" spacers under each rail. I guess that could be done with flextrack too.
[BTW, what's with the 1:1 scale covered hopper ladder in the background? :P]
Colorado building codes again.... that's a fire escape ladder that the builders have to put into the basement window wells (even if the space is unfinished).
Ed
-
Interesting, I never knew it was like that. For modeling that would mean that the tangent track needs the 0.020" spacers under each rail. I guess that could be done with flextrack too.
Colorado building codes again.... that's a fire escape ladder that the builders have to put into the basement window wells (even if the space is unfinished).
Ed
Not just Colorado, I think it's in the national code for fire egress. I had to have them in Utah and I think it's for any window well that's more than 30" deep.
-
Here is a batch with the latest design, fresh off the printer (welll, ok, out of the curing station). I'm able to fit 19 strips into one print 'block', at about 4 3/4" per strip that should be good for about 90" of track per block. That seems to be about the most that will fit onto the build plate of the printer. The block on the LHS of the first pic is the standard/regular thickness for tangent track, and the block on the RHS has a 0.020" superelevation cant included across the length of each tie (sort of like a wedge doorstop).
One thing I like about the integrated cant is that there is no shimming to be done, which should make installation a little easier & quicker, plus the results should be more consistent. The canting supports the full length of each tie flat against the roadbed with no gaps, which seems like a bit of extra assurance against possible cracking over time (something that traditional flextrack does not need to worry about). I'm planning to make some variants with 0.005", 0.010", and 0.015" elevations, for use in transitions.
(Side note, one of the things that I changed in this revision was the cross-section of the webbing between the ties. Previously it was semi-circular and larger, now it is smaller and I made it from just a few beveled surfaces. It seems that with curved/circular surfaces, the slicing software (Chitubox) takes exponentially longer to compute the slices, esp. as the number of strips is increased. (I thought my Mac was going to melt.) They are probably using some rudimentary algorithms that do not scale very well. The software also seems rather buggy, in that I found certain shapes will confuse it into producing odd slices that do not print properly.)
Next up are some painting and assembly jigs. ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/K3Y4joi.jpg?2)
(https://i.imgur.com/CahzbTX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/k4l6brf.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/o9wHdqs.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FXNweIT.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hZTRfn0.jpg)
Cheers,
Ed
-
Here is my home-brew version of "pad printing" to paint the rail clips. I simply took a small piece of the denser kind of packaging foam (in this case, from a package for a replacement cell phone battery) and taped it onto a flat bit of thin plywood. Then I paint a thin layer of MM Acryl Red Oxide paint onto the foam, and lay it face-down on the ties strips so that it touches only the tops of the rail clips. A few light taps gets a pretty even application of the paint onto all the rail clips, but you do have to be careful -- if you tip the pad at any point then it is easy to get paint where you don't want it, and some follow-on touching up will be needed. The foam does absorb some of the paint, and you have to put a fresh layer of paint every few strips or so, but overall it is way faster and neater than any other method I have tried so far. The whole block of 19 strips took only about 10 minutes to paint the clips this way.
N.B. this is my latest version of the tie strips (it's at v4.5 now). I made the rail clips a little taller, and also found that I had to widen the spacing between the clips in order to allow the rail to fit readily. Seems there is a bit of shrinking during the printing process that I need to compensate for (esp. on the side where the web is).
(https://i.imgur.com/1EjzHwZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fZmmYnN.jpg)
Ed
-
Bits and pieces of random thoughts come to me at odd hours....
The latest is your painting problem for these tie strips.
Since you have the file for the tie strip, why not use it to make a painting mask? I think you can us it to make a negative surface in a new solid, then cut that to expose the tie plates and clips to be painted.
Charlie Vlk
-
Bits and pieces of random thoughts come to me at odd hours....
The latest is your painting problem for these tie strips.
Since you have the file for the tie strip, why not use it to make a painting mask? I think you can us it to make a negative surface in a new solid, then cut that to expose the tie plates and clips to be painted.
Charlie Vlk
Great minds think alike Charlie. I suggested this (including a sketch) back on page 10 of this thread, in reply 141 (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=48446.msg644850#msg644850) (Dec 2019). :D
-
Polacks and Bohunks rule!
Charlie Vlk
-
Polacks and Bohunks rule!
Charlie Vlk
Right on Charlie! 8)
However, I do think that the stamp method Ed came up with is pretty nifty too.
I'm thinking that if he created a fixture which holds the ties and lines up the stamp above them, so it is parallel to the tie surface, and limits its travel to just "kiss" the spikes, it would make it easier to get consistent results
-
Since you have the file for the tie strip, why not use it to make a painting mask? I think you can us it to make a negative surface in a new solid, then cut that to expose the tie plates and clips to be painted.
The resin printing isn't quite as precise as say photo etching, so making a mask that fits well enough (without bleed, fits a bunch of flexible strips, etc.) could become a bit problematic. For the amount of strips I anticipate, the pad seems like a 'good enough' approach, at least for now.
What does add steps to the painting process is trying to keep paint out of the areas where the rail will be glued. My solution so far is to stick some .040" square styrene strips into the rail guides before hitting them with the spray cans. A bit crude, but again workable for the amount of track I intend to build, at least in the short term:
(https://i.imgur.com/KUZmQ7Q.jpg?1)
Ed
-
Polacks Poles
Fixed that for you ;) (the previous not being too nice a word)
Ed
-
Ed-
As a pure (at least as based on genealogy going back to the 1600s) Bohemian I used the word “Bohunk” on myself. That was a derogatory term that, like many such words, was embraced by ethnics to describe themselves (with pride). My wife is half Bohemian and half Polish.
No more commentary is necessary....
Charlie Vlk. (If my ancestors had settled a few more kilometers north it would have been Welk)