S7 flat bottom track for a light railway/industrial rural tramway

Marc Dobson

Western Thunderer
Silly question but if you don't ask you never know. What code rail would people recommend for building light railway flat bottomed track? I had planned to do something in 0-21 using code 100FB what do people think to light?

MarcChichester.jpg ? This is the effect that I'm looking for.
 

Osgood

Western Thunderer
Looky here for accurate representations of FB rail:
What's New

3rd 0r 4th topic down, and here is the table of dimensions:
http://www.karlgarin.com/rail_flatbottom_sizes.pdf

You'd possibly need something like 45 or 65lb rail to match the scene above?
If you need dimensions of similar rail e.g. Lynn& Fakenham Rly rolled by Krupps or Yarmouth & North Norfolk Rly rolled by Blaenavon, I could run a ruler over some pieces tomorrow.
In fact I will for sure, 'cos I need to know too!
 
Last edited:

Jordan

Mid-Western Thunderer
Code 100 is fine for light rails in 7mm scale. Kalgarin is true 7mm scale code 100 with a wider rail head than if you take the Cheapskate Option like me, & recycle OO/HO Code 100 rail. As the difference is measured on a micrometer, personally I wasn't fussed enough to buy the true scale rail.
000031757056.Jpeg
 

Overseer

Western Thunderer
I was going to suggest Marcway code 90 fb rail but it doesn't look like it is still on their list. Might be worth asking them about, it was meant for TT and has a wider foot than most code 100 fb. They do a code 75 fb which would be good for narrow gauge. If you model the Southwold Railway Peco code 60 fb rail is to scale. It all depends on the weight of rail used by the prototype. Code 100 is equivalent to over 60lb rail in 7mm scale, so too heavy for most narrow gauge lines.
 

Osgood

Western Thunderer
So from A Short History of the M&GN Joint Rly by Ronald Clark comes reference to the required minimum weight permitted by the Light Railway Act of 40lb per yd.
Also this drawing of 65/70lb per yd rail.
5D206568-5E6C-4D1C-9C44-69A49BC0B5E0.jpeg

I have checked my two samples - the Krupp rail as Clark’s book comes out at 4 3/8 high x 4 3/4 wide - a little worn but matches ok to Clark’s drawing. The Blaenavon rail is exactly as per the drawing. So there was a slight variation between different manufacturers as might be imagined.
Blaenavon sample below:
1A9AF72D-B47B-4E0C-869B-ADF010946694.jpeg

Which points to - as suggested by Jordan, the code 100/7 Karlgarin rail.
 
Last edited:

Osgood

Western Thunderer
I'm going to hazard a guess that the rail in your photograph (Chichester on the std gauge Col Stephens Hundred of Manhood & Selsey line) shows 40/45 lb rail which would be the minimum for std gauge light railways - certainly looks lighter than the 65 lb rail.
Unlike Overseer I had not appreciated that your application was for 3ft gauge (o-21) - I was distracted by the photo of a std gauge line.

For your application, I would have thought code 82/7 representing 40/45 lb rail would be as chunky as you wanted to go.
I've just checked in some reference books - the Southwold Rly used 45lb rail (my mistake - should be 30 lb, see later posts) - the narrower Welshpool & Llanfair using 45 lb rail
I have no knowledge of what might be suitable to represent lighter 30lb as perhaps used by a light industrial NG line but will read with interest what folk recommend.

I have just obtained a small quantity of both 100/7 and 82/7 to represent industrial std gauge and 3ft gauge respectively, in order to experiment wth track making.
 
Last edited:

Marc Dobson

Western Thunderer
The stuff I have is Peco ex-OO flexi track. I was going to pin it directly to wood sleepers. Then I was going to cover everything in static grass for an over grown look. Would anyone notice?

Supplementary question. I'm presuming that I will have to machine/etch /print some track gauges? I tried the rail in the S7 roller gauges and it just slopped around in them.

Marc
 

Bill Campbell

Western Thunderer
The stuff I have is Peco ex-OO flexi track. I was going to pin it directly to wood sleepers. Then I was going to cover everything in static grass for an over grown look. Would anyone notice?

Supplementary question. I'm presuming that I will have to machine/etch /print some track gauges? I tried the rail in the S7 roller gauges and it just slopped around in them.

Marc

Hi Marc

The first time, many, many years ago, I built some track and turnouts using code 100 FB rail using a steel rule and a mark 1 eyeball. It was 16.5mm gauge for 00 and the rail was spiked to wooden sleepers. The check rails were done by simply placing the check rail and running rail base to base - this accommodated everything from Jackson fine flange wheels up to Tri-ang "roller coaster" loco wheels.

I think you are a Templot user so use that for the track design and a lot of the hard work is done for you.

Regards.
 

Jordan

Mid-Western Thunderer
The stuff I have is Peco ex-OO flexi track. I was going to pin it directly to wood sleepers. Then I was going to cover everything in static grass for an over grown look. Would anyone notice?
No. Or at least - I doubt it very much indeed.

Supplementary question. I'm presuming that I will have to machine/etch /print some track gauges? I tried the rail in the S7 roller gauges and it just slopped around in them.

Marc
Make your own, Yes.
But it's not that difficult, and can be something pretty basic. In this photo are my home-made -bodged track gauges; left foreground, a piece of aluminium angle with slots cut in it, and in the middle of the picture, on it's side, my even more basic block of wood with slots cut in it.
Both items designed to give engineers, rivet-counters and S7 track-layers forty fits. :)
But they work. :thumbs:


For me. :oops:

Tracklaying.Jpeg
 

victorianman

Western Thunderer
You can make perfectly good track without gauges if you use a (digital) vernier. I have done this successfully in S7 with the appropriate drill shank to get the crossing flangeway correct. I feel that track gauges can bring a false sense of security and are easy to mis-use, particularly in possibly imposing strain on plastic rail chairs (if you are using them), whereas a vernier will give you an actual reading of the dimensions you have set.
 

Marc Dobson

Western Thunderer
As an engineer the golden rule that was dilled into us through our training was "Keep it simple stupid". Simple, easy, solutions are usually the best ones. The least parts reduce the opportunity for Mr Cockup to pay a visit! So no fits here not even a twinge.

I did etch up some O-21 gauges using S7 standards in 18thou NS plate. I have a etch being put together for another job at the moment so I will slot a couple on. Might even find a market for any spare ones who knows.

Marc
 

julian

New Member
Hi - new member, but the Sandy and Potton Railway (opened 1857 without Act of Parliament, and my interest) had 59lb rail which apparently is equal to code 100FB or 110 bullhead (British Railway Journal, can't access the copies now by around issue 22 in an article about rails/Midland Railway). Hope this helps.
 

Overseer

Western Thunderer
Hi - new member, but the Sandy and Potton Railway (opened 1857 without Act of Parliament, and my interest) had 59lb rail which apparently is equal to code 100FB or 110 bullhead (British Railway Journal, can't access the copies now by around issue 22 in an article about rails/Midland Railway). Hope this helps.
Welcome Julian.
Was the Sandy & Potton built with flat bottom or double head or bullhead rail? Flat bottom is easy to match reasonably well but lighter than late 19th Century mainline standard bullhead track is nearly impossible to model in 7mm. It is a problem which doesn't seem any closer to being resolved. Slaters do sell a Code 100 bullhead rail but it is quite narrow and a bit lacking in its profile, and there are no 7mm scale chairs available to suit it, though chairs could now be 3d printed. I have a side interest in the Sandy & Potton and have built one of the locos but have never looked into the railway itself in any detail.

Noting Osgood's comment earlier that the Southwold Railway used 45lb, this doesn't match the detailed descriptions given in at least one of the line histories. The Southwold was built with 30lb rails in 21 foot lengths and I don't think it was ever relaid with heavier rail. The remnant rails on the harbour branch were certainly small enough to have been 30lb (I did measure them once but not sure where that notebook is). The closest match to 30lb would be Code 70 in 7mm scale (just over size) or Code 60 in 1:48.
 

Osgood

Western Thunderer
I stand corrected Fraser - just checked in ‘The Southwold Railway’ by Peter Paye and he gives the same 30lb / 21ft information as you have provided above.
I’m now off to the library to find the source of my 45 lb blooper. Oops!
 
Last edited:

Osgood

Western Thunderer
Well I must apologise, I have no idea what happened there.
I pulled two books out on Sunday - The Southwold Rly by Paye and The Welshpool & Llanfair Light Rly by Williams.
I can find no other reference book containing info on Southwold rail weight.

From Rails to Glyn Ceriog by Milner (Glyn Valley Tramway) comes 50lb, 28ft for 2’ 4 1/2” gauge.
From The Leek & Manifold Valley Lt Rly by Gratton comes 35lb, 24ft for 2’6 Gauge (Board of Trade Inspector’s report).
From The Ashover Light Railway by Gratton & Band comes 30lb ex army for 2’ gauge.
From The Lynton & Barnstaple Rly Measured & Drawn by Bishop & Phillips comes 40lb for 1’ 11 1/2” gauge.

Interestingly for the Welshpool & Llanfair The Light Railway Order proposed use of 35lb rail, but the Railway Inspectorate suggested this would be too light and recommended a minimum of 41 1/2 lb and they used 45lb.

The Wantage Tramway had almost the lot (The Wantage Tramway by Pearce-Higgins).
Laid originally with 40lb bridge rail - substantially but not wholly replaced with various quantities of FB rail of 46, 56, 78 (ex M&SWJ), and 98 lb (ex GWR for use on some curves).
 
Last edited:

Overseer

Western Thunderer
Well I must apologise, I have no idea what happened there.
I pulled two books out on Sunday - The Southwold Rly by Paye and The Welshpool & Llanfair Light Rly by Williams.
I can find no other reference book containing info on Southwold rail weight.

From Rails to Glyn Ceriog by Milner (Glyn Valley Tramway) comes 50lb, 28ft for 2’ 4 1/2” gauge.
From The Leek & Manifold Valley Lt Rly by Gratton comes 35lb, 24ft for 2’6 Gauge (Board of Trade Inspector’s report).
From The Ashover Light Railway by Gratton, Band comes 30lb ex army for 2’ gauge.
From The Lynton & Barnstaple Rly Measured & Drawn by Phillips comes 40lb for 1’ 11 1/2” gauge.

Interestingly for the Welshpool & Llanfair The Light Railway Order proposed use of 35lb rail, but the Railway Inspectorate suggested this would be too light and recommended a minimum of 41 1/2 lb and they used 45lb.

The Wantage Tramway had almost the lot (The Wantage Tramway by Pearce-Higgins).
Laid originally with 40lb bridge rail - substantially but not wholly replaced with various quantities of FB rail of 46, 56, 78 (ex M&SWJ), and 98 lb (ex GWR for use on some curves).
Should we apologise for distracting you from your modelling? Thanks for the list. I am surprised the Glyn Valley track was that heavy but then it was comprehensively rebuilt for steam haulage. I had a look in 'The Snailbeach District Railways' for the Snailbeach rail weight but have only found 40lb in the original specification and no confirmation if this is what was actually used.

What this all adds up to is that it seems Code 100 is too tall to accurately represent the track of any English narrow gauge railway in O scale.
 

decauville1126

Active Member
The current Model Railway Journal, N0.275, has some very good info on this subject and refers to Peter Kazer's system/method. Might be worth a look.
 
Top