For the third or fourth time in a week, here and elsewhere I have read mentions of "Code 30" rail. Does it have a real rail profile, or is it simply 0.030" x 0.010" strip wire? I found a supplier in an N scale modeling group in the UK, and from the little I can gather from their site it's rectangular nickel-silver jeweler's wire.
We have had discussions here before about something smaller than Code 40 in a flat-bottom rail profile. Has that threshold been crossed?
Code 30 "rail" from the 2mm Scale Association is not "rail", but is flattened wire. However, it's not square on the top and bottom but rounded, which looks good for the railhead but is problematic for the railfoot since you want a platform that supports the vertical orientation of the wire.
I am not sure of the width of C30 "ribbon" rail, but I would guess that it's slightly greater than .010" judging by my photos of it. Got to remember that since the railhead is curved, the highlight coming off of it will make it look narrower than if it were flat. I'll have to take my dial calipers with me the next time I'm at Gregg's.
If you think about it, you'll conclude that the flat sides are going to NOT look very realistic, but in actual practice, even taking sharp close-ups with a Nikon 60mm Micro (Macro) lens, after the track is painted, weathered and ballasted, you don't notice that the profile is flat...and I mean it's too small to see and your eye is attracted by its small width and shortness much more than distracted by there being no "rail" profile.
I haven't laid any code 30 yet, but I'm part of the crew on Gregg Cudworth's RGS Nn3 layout, and he is in the process of laying over 33 scale miles of C30 track with a combination of wooden ties and PCB ties every 7th tie. Gregg makes a small, consistent fillet of solder for the rails on every 7th tie to support the C30's vertical orientation, and gaps the rails every 20 inches because it is particularly susceptible to kinking due to benchwork expansion and contraction. Gregg runs a feeder soldered to the bottom/center of every piece of rail to his power buses underneath. Gregg has purchased his pre-gapped Nn3 PCB ties from the 2MM Scale Association in the past, but is now buying them from Fast Tracks.
Because of C30's flexibility, care needs to be taken in the construction of the closure points on switches. Also, there is no railfoot so simply soldering the closure point toes to a PCB "throwbar" is going to be very fragile and extremely prone to breaking at the solder joints. Gregg hinges his switch closure point switch rail toes using .005" wire soldered to the C30 rail and inserted into corresponding holes drilled in a PCB "throwbar", which performs two functions (1) the hinges relieve the closure point switch rails of any torque caused by a rigid parallelogram if no sliding hinges are made at the closure point switch rail heels, and (2) offer a much stronger attachment protocol for the rails being attached to the PCB "throwbar". Unfortunately I don't have any photos of any of Gregg's non-stub switch turnouts. I'll make sure I take some the next time I'm down there.
Photo (1) - Code 30 "ribbon rail" laid on Gregg Cudworth's Nn3 RGS layout at Rico...this is an extreme closeup showing no "rail" profile, rounded top, and soldered to every 7th PCB tie, with stained wooden ties in-between:
For the prototype RGS's 3 foot gauge trackwork, there weren't many tieplates, and maybe that's true for other narrow gauge prototypes too, so a lack of them is prototypical and if you're going to lay Nn3, I wouldn't worry about them.
Photo (2) - Code 30 3-way "ribbon rail" stub turnout at the throat of Rico Yard on Gregg's RGS:
One thing of importance to note is that there are no NMRA clearance "gages" to assist you when laying track and turnouts in Nn3 or Z. The 2mm Scale Association offers "roller" gauges in both N-scale standard and Nn3 with gaps cut in the roller for 2mm Scale's unique clearances, which means their wheel and flange sizes are slimmer and smaller than what is commonly used in both N-scale and Z-scale (Nn3) and may not work with unmodified Nn3/Z wheels & flanges. I know Gregg uses roller gauges to lay his track, but I'm not sure what their source is, or if he's made them himself on his lathe. He doesn't modify any wheelsets.
Once you've got your gauges made or purchased for Nn3 specifically to use whatever you decide to use for rail that isn't C40, then laying both rail and turnouts is actually easier than using C40 or C55 for your standard gauge N-scale track because the small size makes the removal of metal for your points, frogs and guard rails much quicker because you're not removing as much metal.
As for hand-laying C40 in standard gauge N-scale, my Park City Yard and Park City Branch are both hand-laid C40 using Micro Engineering C40 unweathered rail to make soldering much easier. C40 rail in N-scale is actually HO scale rail, and is proportionally square, with the height being virtually the same measurement as the width of the railfoot. One thing that really slaps you across the face when comparing Nn3 track laid with C40 vs Nn3 track laid with C30 ribbon rail, is how huge the C40 rail looks, especially the width of its railhead.
C40 rail's problem is that the railhead is square, so the highlight coming off of it is also wide. Prototype rail has a rounded railhead, so the highlight coming off the shiny surface makes it look narrower than it is. Compounding the problem is that C40 rail is way too wide to correctly represent Nn3 rails (and is too tall too), and even too wide to look prototypical for standard gauge N-scale rail. Remember that Micro Engineering C40 rails are HO-scale, so the proportions are not going to be correct for 130 to 133 lb mainline rails in N-scale.
But, for standard gauge N-scale track, ME's C40 NS rails are the best we can do....or is there another solution?
I notice that the 2mm Scale Association sells rolls of C40 NS "Bullhead" rail and "Flat Bottom" rail...with is not just rectangular wire. Unfortunately, they don't have photos of this rail, but I am willing to bet that its "railhead" widths are narrower than ME's C40 NS. If you look through the photos on the 2mm Scale Association's site, you'll find some close-up photos of engines and cars sitting on bullhead rail trackage, if turned upside-down, with no "Bullheads", it would look very good as US rail. I couldn't find any photos that featured their "Flat Bottom" rail, which prototypically has a more typical rail cross section than "Bullhead" rail.
Looks like I'm going to have to join them and order some samples of their rail since I've got a huge concrete plant to build on my next LDE with a lot of industrial trackage.
Since we're talking about C40 now, even with its too-wide railhead, it looks pretty good in contrast to C55 rails...meaning using C55 for mainline trackage, and hand-laid C40 for lightly trafficked sidings, spurs and branchlines.
The main disadvantage to my rivet-counter eyeballs of hand-laid C40 trackage is no tie plates or spikeheads...especially when using ME C55 in close proximity to your hand-laid C40. Of course, I could do what DKS has done with his C20 trackage and put a PCB tie under every tie, then cut & peel the cladding away, leaving "tie plates" under the rails...which would solve half the problem...but I'd still not have any spikeheads...and this method would be expensive on my large layout as well as time consuming...and use a lot of #11 blades! But, it would definitely look better for standard-gauge N-scale track than NO tieplates.
OR, I could use Proto87Store's frets of NS C40 tieplate/spikehead details...but the parts are so damned tiny (unprototypically tiny) I haven't convinced myself that using them under every C40 rail at every tie would be visible. I have about a dozen frets that I haven't used yet because of my doubt...and the chance that I might sneeze and scatter them into oblivion...really. I need to make a test section to test 'em and see if they're worth the extra effort.
Proto87Stores also offers SS etched spikes that are scale sized for HO-scale, which might work pretty good if you wanted to actually spike your N-scale C40 rails to wooden ties and the price isn't too bad. They certainly look exponentially better than what Micro Engineering offers.
Which brings us to a philosophical question: "Is over-sized detailing more desirable than non-existent implied detailing?" For N-scale track, I much prefer "implied" detailing rather than grossly oversized details...such as what passes for tieplate/spikehead details on every present-day manufactured flex track and turnout...with the possible exception of ME's #6 C55 turnout. The very best-looking flex track ever made was RailCraft (and early Micro Engineering) C55 and C40 flex, with near-scale spikeheads and tieplate details. Unfortunately, when the molds wore out, the new replacements had grossly oversized "spikehead" details...just a bit smaller than the original Atlas 55's blobs to allow pizza cutters to roll on it unobstructed. Luckily, I bought a shirt-load of RailCraft C55 flex, which I use for my visible trackage, and I recently came across a treasure trove of original RailCraft C55 and C40 which is now in my possession.
So...does hand-laid N-scale track in C55 and C40 look pretty good without any tieplate/spikehead details?? Does it look better than commercial C55 flex?...especially Atlas55 and the new Micro Engineering C55 with their oversized spikehead details? You be the judge.
Photo (3) - Hand-laid PCB C55 and C40 mainline/siding trackage with no tieplate/spikehead details, painted & weathered with no ballast:
Photo (4) - Close up photos of Atlas55 flex (on the left) and ME C55 flex (on the right) comparing their oversized tieplate/spikehead detailing:
Photo (5) - Park City Branchline handlaid C40 PCB trackage in the foreground, contrasting to RailCraft C55 on superelevated mainlines further back with visible spikes...which looks better???
I think they both look pretty good...but, I don't think that Atlas55 flex looks good...the spikeheads are just too big for me. New ME 55's spikeheads, although smaller than Atlas55's...are marginally acceptable for me...but, unless you've got a stash of RailCraft C55/C40 to build your layout with, the new ME C55 is the best that's available from an appearance standpoint.
So, I wouldn't waste much time worrying about the lack of spikes on handlaid PCB N-scale/Nn3 track since the spikeheads on prototype trackage aren't all that noticeable since they're relatively so small.
However, for prototype trackage with 39' rails bolted together, the most obvious thing I see when looking at photos in my layout's era, are all those rail joiners every 39 feet on the rail web. I still haven't decided if I want to design an etched fret of these, or use what is already on the market for us N-scalers...or just leave 'em off. So far, my efforts at making a realistic looking rail joiner in N-scale haven't been successful, but there are products out there that appear to be more like what I'm looking for...more prominent than Proto87Stores' product, but narrow enough so that flanges don't hit 'em.
Photo (6) - Prototype photo of U.P. trackage in the early '50's showing how prominent rail joiners are on real track:
Track is a lot of fun, and the topic of a lot of thought when I'm daydreaming and planning. Treating it as a model to get "right" and detail out, adds a lot to a layout IMO, and compliments our efforts made to make our motive power and rolling stock look more realistic.
Anyway...more than 'nuff said. Lunchtime.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
