Code 30 Rail - Is it for real?

[VonRyan]

So I was perusing this thread, because track is in my future finally, and saw the reference to this post - Railcraft vs. ME c40 ? In it was a link to a Brit firm, Finetrax. I imagine I'll hear yelps when it comes to the "spike" detail, but has anyone ever looked at it or tried it? I can't see it looking worse than Atlas track in regards to the spikes and they do have a nice selection of turnouts.


Honestly, I'm thinking I should just learn to hand lay. With the option Atlas's 'issues' and ME's questionable availability and only one turnout option, I'm thinking it would be better to hand lay - in terms of economy, aesthetics, reliability, and satisfaction.

Finetrax doesn't have spikes. It's chaired bullhead rail, per UK prototype.

[robert3985]

I've been advocating for years that Peco introduce a line in N-scale equivalent to their HO scale North American track, except use the embedded rail architecture like they have with their present-day C55 track.

This would make for near-perfect N-scale track, which would include (1) Scale-sized and proportioned visible rail in C46 for 136lb AREA rail or C447 for 131lb AREA rail (2) Properly proportioned and spaced ties for heavily-trafficked mainline track (3) Properly proportioned variety of turnouts from small to extra large in specific turnout numbers from #5 to #14 with wyes, curved and other "puzzle" turnouts and diamonds (4) All turnouts will have live frogs (6) All turnouts will have NS metal guard rails (7) Turnout switch rails will be tri-planed NS so no milling away of adjacent stock rails will be required and switch will be both durable and prototypical looking. ( 8 ) Turnouts will be DCC friendly (9) Turnouts will have all rail braces, special tie plates, and spike detailing in near prototype sized scale because they will be totally cosmetic.  If a over-center spring mechanism could be engineered without affected prototype appearance at the headblocks, then okay...if not, skip it...or offer an add-on spring mechanism.

Mold it all in creosote brown plastic, with maybe a branchline mold with ties smaller and further apart for lightly trafficked track in a lighter brown or dark tan.  Same sized rails, or maybe C35 or C38 for either 90lb or 100lb rail.  Still plenty of room for lo-pro wheelsets, especially with scale-sized spikeheads...which would only be .004" high.

Nice pipe dream, but a considerable expense for any manufacturer who would want to offer this to their N-scale market.

An added pipe dream would be to offer Nn3 track using the same principle of embedded rails...along with American prototype cars, and maybe engines.

Once again, I'm not holding my breath...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[CRL]

Creosote colored ties? When we end up painting our rails and ties?

USA prototype ties would be nice, but we can clip & slide ties to simulate branchline spacing... or just bury the ties in dirt.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Creosote colored ties? When we end up painting our rails and ties?

USA prototype ties would be nice, but we can clip & slide ties to simulate branchline spacing... or just bury the ties in dirt.

Oh man. I did that tie clipping thing for a number of sidings on my old layout. I loved the look but god damn, it was in my top five list of most annoying model railroad tasks.  So much so that I blogged about it: http://conrail1285.com/it-takes-a-lot-of-little-things-to-build-a-layout/

[peteski]

Creosote colored ties? When we end up painting our rails and ties?

USA prototype ties would be nice, but we can clip & slide ties to simulate branchline spacing... or just bury the ties in dirt.

Well, we are just musing here.

I don't see anything really all that wrong or far fetched in Robert's pipe dream.  I'm actually glad that he seems to be on board with the idea of rail embedded, like in Peco c55.

Why not creosote colored ties?  We are wishing for prototypical spacing and size, why not the color too?  If the spacing is prototypical, why not mold them using appropriately colored plastic?  If you want to go the extra mile, nobody is stopping you from painting them for even more realistic effect.  Kind of like with the couplers. Originally most were molded in shiny black plastic. Now some companies mold them using a rusty colored plastic. That makes it easy to weather them even further.

And if the rail is embedded in the tie strip, good luck clipping and shifting the ties.  It will be very tough, if not impossible.  Get a piece of Peco c55 track and give it a whirl.    You really need to look at the whole picture man!

[CRL]

I use Peco code 55 almost exclusively, and I know exactly what it entails to clip & shift the embedded ties, so I’m very aware of “the whole picture”.

One of the factors you seem to forget is Peco is a British company, and that’s their primary market. They’ll only do an American prototype when they feel there’s a profitable enough market to justify the tooling costs. They haven’t even converted all of their n-scale turnouts to unifrog yet, so I’m pretty sure American prototype is way down the list.

[peteski]

One of the factors you seem to forget is Peco is a British company, and that’s their primary market.  . . . I’m pretty sure American prototype is way down the list.

Not forgetting a thing. I guess you keep missing the "pipe dream" part. 
This is just  like we (in USA) keep pining for more U.S. prototype models from Kato (Japanese company catering mainly to Japanese market).  Is it so wrong to hope?

As far as rearranging ties on Peco c55 track - have fun doing that.  I would love to what you accomplished. How many feet have you rearranged?

[CRL]

Ahhhh... pipe dream. Got it. But didn’t know it was a crack pipe. 

As to spreading Peco code 55 ties, I don’t spread all of the ties. Just some small sections. It’s actually easier to completely remove a small section of ties and use a few of the Peco joiner section dummy ties for the exposed section, then bury the full stabilizing ties on each side in ballast & dirt. Gives a very good little used spur line effect. It only takes a few short sections like this to achieve the overall effect. The real challenge is making sure the modeled exposed ties are crooked and unevenly spaced.

If I want a more random look for a longer section, I’d use ME code 40 with some clipped ties to get the crooked look.

[robert3985]

Ahhhh... pipe dream. Got it. But didn’t know it was a crack pipe. 

As to spreading Peco code 55 ties, I don’t spread all of the ties. Just some small sections. It’s actually easier to completely remove a small section of ties and use a few of the Peco joiner section dummy ties for the exposed section, then bury the full stabilizing ties on each side in ballast & dirt. Gives a very good little used spur line effect. It only takes a few short sections like this to achieve the overall effect. The real challenge is making sure the modeled exposed ties are crooked and unevenly spaced.

If I want a more random look for a longer section, I’d use ME code 40 with some clipped ties to get the crooked look.

I use ME C40 for my mainline center sidings, and none of my Kato F's or Atlas Geeps will run on it until I sand down the spikeheads. My low-profile rolling stock runs fine, but my engines don't.  My modules have been on their edges now for 2 years, so I can't say if my Athearn Big Boys & Challengers will run on it unobstructed unless I sand the inner spikeheads down more.  I'm doing only one center siding with ME C40 until I can confirm it can be fixed for all of my motive power....and I have zero engines with pizza cutters.

Photo (1) - I've posted this before, but it graphically shows what I'm forced to do with ME C40 flex used for my mainline center sidings...I like the look however of the sanded down inner spikeheads:


More logical to me would be to hand-lay code 40 with PCB ties every fifth tie, like I do for my Park City Branch and yard.  Even pizza cutters run ok there, but there are no spikeheads or tieplates...which bothers me when I think about it, but in actual operation, I think the trackage looks pretty spiffy.  Either way, ya gotta hand-lay your C40 turnouts.

For another look at what C40 laid as light duty trackage looks like, take a peek at my first post in this thread for a photo of it.

I'm working on 20 feet of LDE for my sectional layout (one 8', and two 6' sections) that will include Wilhemina Pass, Devils Slide and the huge Ideal Concrete Plant with its extensive industrial trackage.  I'm pretty sure I'll be hand-laying everything at the Ideal Plant spur with C40, or maybe with the 2mm Scale Association's flat bottom rail or their bullhead rail turned upside down.  I'm also pretty sure I'll be drawing up some correct frets of etched tieplates to work with whatever C40 rail I decide to go with, along with some frets of turnouts details much like Proto87Store's frets, but exactly in keeping with my official U.P. drawings of turnout fixtures.  Should be a lot of fun!...but, I'm still working on how to fit the concrete plant into the LDE in a semi-prototypical way.  Lots of C55 turnouts to make too, so I'm gonna detail them the same as with my C40 frets, which won't be as dandruff-flake sized as Proto87Store's C40 stuff is.

As for Peco making ultimate N-scale North American rail.  They would virtually corner the market with it with everybody who models North American prototypes...or other lands whose trackage standards are similar...without a doubt...and would probably put Micro Engineering out of the N-scale business.  I think it would be an excellent investment for them.

In the meantime, I'll just keep using ME C55, ME C40 and hand-laying all my turnouts, which seems to work pretty well for me!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Lemosteam]

Maybe, like with 3D printing "technology" will solve the problem  (it won't, can't) because there are always limits to miniaturization.

There is always a point where the function will fail because once you approach in size (think wheel flange depth from railhead) what manufacturers can barely hold for a tolerance variation on that size, the resultant tolerance stackup will result in newfound failures such as derailments, as the wheel flange shrinks and the realhead drops, etc.

It will simply cause a new round of complaints against manufacturers when the product does not function that way we expect it to, the asme way that some swear by atlas or ME or PECO track or handlaying vs. RTR track, etc.

Throw in the now needed accuracy of laying said track, and all of that will do nothing but exacerbate those complaints.

In all honesty, the PECO Code 40 below rail solution at least addresses many of these issues the best from a design perspective.

Time to move on to virtual model railroading where everything APPEARS as we like, never derails, never experiences electrical or DCC programming issues, dirty track or dirty wheels.

Rant over.  Sorry the track topics just become so wearisome to me sometimes.

[dem34]

Time to move on to virtual model railroading where everything APPEARS as we like, never derails, never experiences electrical or DCC programming issues, dirty track or dirty wheels.

Rant over.  Sorry the track topics just become so wearisome to me sometimes.

Ah but you see, then you put yourself at the mercy of developers that have curious ideas of what good graphics look like and baffling understandings of the laws of physics.

[Maletrain]

Rant over.  Sorry the track topics just become so wearisome to me sometimes.

Then, maybe you should hand-in your Plaid Membership so you aren't required to read them any more? 

[Lemosteam]

Ah but you see, then you put yourself at the mercy of developers that have curious ideas of what good graphics look like and baffling understandings of the laws of physics.

Not if you upload your own models into the simulator.

[Lemosteam]

Then, maybe you should hand-in your Plaid Membership so you aren't required to read them any more?