Code 30 Rail - Is it for real?

[narrowminded]

Interesting thoughts on rail joiners ... rail joiners are still needed even modeling today - some sidings for sure. I'm not sure about what I'm gonna do about them on the next layout ...

I'm not using any rail joiners on my flex tie bed track.  The rail is bent to the laying contour and is guided by the tie bed so there is little to no force trying to straighten the track, pulling it out of alignment.  Joiners could be used if someone wanted to but I've seen no need.  For the electrical connection I've soldered a dropper on the bottom of the rail, cut out the tie bridging material between the two ties, and then drilled a hole for the wire to pass through directly below that point in the rail, all joined to the bus wire underneath.  Nicely hidden and solid assurance of a good connection.

[Mark5]

Mark G.,

I was talking about cosmetic rail joiners. 

Mark

[peteski]

Mark G.,

I was talking about cosmetic rail joiners. 

Mark

Fishplates?
I really don't think that anybody will notice them missing on the side of c30 rectangular profile track.  Just file a notches in the rail head to get that clickety-clack sound of sectional rail. 

[narrowminded]

If you're working with Code 40, Proto:87 has joint bars.   http://www.proto87.com/N_scale_turnouts_and_track.html

If you were using code 30 ribbon rail as described there is no room, no rail profile, for those to be used.  But if you make your own rail with a profile then I guess you could make your own joint bars.

Is there a genuine interest in this?  I think I could make the tooling to do this and probably with an actual rail profile but it's not something I would want to tackle to make several feet.

[Mark5]

Is there a genuine interest in this?  I think I could make the tooling to do this and probably with an actual rail profile but it's not something I would want to tackle to make several feet.

Thanks Mark G. - I have no interest in the C30 stuff, as even true Code 40 is smaller than the rail N&W used (going way back). I built a C40 layout back in the 70s, but these days I would use C55 on the main and C40 on some sidings etc. Good to know about the Proto 87 site (I thought it was all HO).

Mark

[Maletrain]

.... Good to know about the Proto 87 site (I thought it was all HO).

Mark

I think it is all HO - but, we are using HO profile code 40 (and code 55  and code 80) track in N scale, anyway.  So, Proto87 models of fishplates (prototype rail joiners) should work for our N scale tracks if they work on HO track. The key dimension is that they don't stick out farther than the railhead so that they don't get hit by the unprototypically deep flanges used on our model wheels.

[DKS]

I've made my own fishplates from strip styrene, the width chosen to fit the web of Code whatever rail I was using. I poked it with a sharp tool to simulate bolt heads before cutting it to fit. A bit more trouble than the etched metal variety, but far cheaper, and they also won't screw up electrical gaps. (Sorry I can't find any photos--you'll just have to take my word for it.) BTW, I never use conventional rail joiners any more.

I still say that commercial track manufacturers should go the Peco route: make their track like Peco c55 and embed the bottom part in the tie strip.  That way the visible part of the rail can be any code you want (even c20!) but the track will be sturdier than anything else around. Plus the molded spike heads can also be made as fine as possible (since they are decorative only). Brilliant!!

The only problem with this idea is cost. It's insanely expensive to draw custom rail (ask me how I know), so a manufacturer had better be sure about having a market large enough to offset the cost of making the rail...

 

[peteski]

The only problem with this idea is cost. It's insanely expensive to draw custom rail (ask me how I know), so a manufacturer had better be sure about having a market large enough to offset the cost of making the rail...

Well, a company that already has a contract with a company that makes their rail (or makes it themselves), like Peco, could probably do it less expensively than someone new coming into the market.  But you do have a valid point. Not sure how many modelers would want a c40 or c30 rail.

Speaking of Peco, it would make more sense for them to first use their existing c55 rail and make new track with more accurate tie shape and spacing.

[wazzou]

Well, a company that already has a contract with a company that makes their rail (or makes it themselves), like Peco, could probably do it less expensively than someone new coming into the market.  But you do have a valid point. Not sure how many modelers would want a c40 or c30 rail.

Speaking of Peco, it would make more sense for them to first use their existing c55 rail and make new track with more accurate tie shape and spacing.

@robert3985 ?  What were the results of your conversation with Peco at the NTS?

[davefoxx]

Well, a company that already has a contract with a company that makes their rail (or makes it themselves), like Peco, could probably do it less expensively than someone new coming into the market.  But you do have a valid point. Not sure how many modelers would want a c40 or c30 rail.

Speaking of Peco, it would make more sense for them to first use their existing c55 rail and make new track with more accurate tie shape and spacing.

From the modeler's perspective, it would make sense to redo the track with more accurate tie shape and spacing and only Code 40 exposed.  If you're going to take advantage of the buried rail for strength, why not make it more accurate?  If the spikes are modeled correctly, most wheels (except pizza cutters) could clear those spikes.

DFF

[narrowminded]

...  If the spikes are modeled correctly, most wheels (except pizza cutters) could clear those spikes.

DFF

I gave the dimensions above but a simpler review would suggest that as it is, measuring N scale code 55 Atlas, ME flex, and Atlas Z scale code 55, all provide the same clearance of .030" for flange height.  Any tolerance seems to be +.002" on my samples.  I don't have any ME code 40 flex to measure but would guess the clearance to be .010" less but maybe as little as .007" less clearance due to the slightly higher than .040" (.043") actual code 40 rail height.  This leaves just enough clearance for an NMRA compliant wheel flange with very little for tolerance.

With that understood, the method of gluing the rail down using lower rail guides as my code 40 tie bed does, the wheel flange clearance is exactly the same as the Code 55 (.030") with the guide projecting only a very small amount above the lower rail flange and for cosmetic purposes more than functional, not requiring spike heads of a thickness sufficient to hold the rail.  So if a wheel will run on code 55 it will run on my code 40 design.  The clearance is the same and they both afford at least .010" wheel flange clearance, a few more if Z, if the wheels are made to NMRA standards.  Some wheel brands as manufactured are slightly lower profile affording even more clearance.

This assured clearance also applies to hand laid code 40 without guides as long as the PCB tie solder build up is less than .012" high.  This also suggests that code 30 typical flex track design with spikes would not be doable as the wheel flange clearance would be reduced to basically zero affording no variation for tolerance in either piece.  And even when hand laid with PCB ties the code 30 would require pretty accurate soldering to keep the solder buildup at an acceptable height, less than .010".  What could be made to work reliably in this situation, as identified by some above, is something constructed like PECO where the rail is contained below the visible rail height and would not require a spike of any more dimension than very low and cosmetic above the visible .030" rail, maybe a couple of thousandths.  This would work fine with any existing N or Z NMRA compliant wheel.

And with all of that said, there is little if any reason to make code 30 rail in N scale as it would only represent the very lightest of rail standards.  In Z and maybe Nn3 it could have merit in much the same way that code 40 does relative to code 55 when used in N scale.  Furthermore, in Z you would gain a couple of thousandths wheel flange clearance which would make the solder clearance much easier to assure.  At least that's what I'm seeing as I ponder this.

[Iain]

As an aside, C40 is about right for the NS mainline.  I would love to experiment with some C30 for sidings and for some narrow gauge action.

[C855B]

... And with all of that said, there is little if any reason to make code 30 rail in N scale as it would only represent the very lightest of rail standards. ...

Bingo. I think it's useful nonetheless for narrow gauge, which would indeed use the lightest standards. Anyway, as it is Code 40 is roughly 20% smaller than 55 and the difference is subtle in real use (both sizes on my layout). I could probably jump behind a Code 35 rail instead of 40 if only for the increased contrast vs. 55, provided the profile was proportional to the size reduction.

As to the Peco sidebar, I don't quite understand the appeal of "more robust" at the sacrifice of compatibility with standard profiles, not to mention the non-North American tie geometries. Code 55 from Atlas, ME and Proto87 are easy enough to work with. I have the rare "oopsie" with sticks of ME Code 40, but that's attributable to bouts of clumsiness stepping over, around and on the clutter around the layout. 

[peteski]

As to the Peco sidebar, I don't quite understand the appeal of "more robust" at the sacrifice of compatibility with standard profiles, not to mention the non-North American tie geometries. Code 55 from Atlas, ME and Proto87 are easy enough to work with. I have the rare "oopsie" with sticks of ME Code 40, but that's attributable to bouts of clumsiness stepping over, around and on the clutter around the layout. 

I know that it is a pipe dream, but I would hope that whoever produces such robust truck, they would produce a full range of track, switches and crossovers. Peco already does that in their current track lines.  Robust (without sacrificing appearance) would always be appealing to me.  So even rare "oopsies" would not end up with track carnage. I'm a belt & suspenders kind of person. Again, this is all just my musings.

[CRL]

The only complaint I have against Peco track is the lack of crossings. They offer a short crossing at 20 degrees and a long crossing at 10 degrees. No 30, 60 or 90 degree crossings. American prototype ties would be nice, but not a deal killer for me personally.