Flat Bottom 1:48 track

[Overseer]

To avoid clogging up JimG's American S scale track thread I have started a separate thread for 1:48 scale track with flat bottom rail. In 1:48 I model Victorian Railways 5'3" gauge to the equivalent of P48 standards but am more than happy to have US prototype standard (or narrow) gauge included in the thread. Australian practice is similar to US practice but differs in a few fundamentals, the most obvious being the spacing of the sleepers (ties) resulting from the characteristics of the different timber used. The language also varies, Australia generally following British terminology but it seems there are cases of Britain adopting US terminology while Australia stuck with the earlier British terms. There are also differences between each state in Australia in terminology as well as gauges to keep things interesting. Someone else will have to help with the standards and regional variations in North America.

I have quite a bit of prototype information on VR permanent way so if anyone is interested I am happy to help.

60lb Australian Standard rails welded into long lengths during the 1930s-


One of the things that I am not happy with yet is the representation of dogspikes. As model the period around 1900 I want to represent the type with a T shaped head seen second and third from right in this photo of a few of my collection. The right hand dogspike is a more modern example with a domed head. The spikes on the left are more like US spikes with a tapered end, they are from timber tramways and would have been used with quite light rails.



This is the test track built using a mix of Right-O-Way (US) and Karlgarin (UK) O scale code 100 rail. This has a wider head and foot (more correctly called the flange but that causes confusion) than the HO code 100 rail. The rail is soldered to pcb strips with intermediate sleepers in balsa wood. The spikes are one of the Micro Engineering square type, I will have to check the size as the packet is packed away. The gauge is nominally 33.3375mm but really probably aiming at 33.34mm.


The turnout is a model of a VR standard 60lb rail turnout with a 1:7.52 degree crossing and 600 foot radius. This 1880-90s version had the crossing riveted to a flat steel plate instead of being bolted. Code 100 is slightly to tall for the 60lb rail and should really be about Code 90. It is right for some 75lb. Code 82 looks too small. Flangeways are to prototype dimensions and allow surprising latitude in wheel standards, including RP-25 Code 110 wheels which have flanges approximately double the scale width.



More detail still to be added, including dummy spikes on the soldered sleepers, but I am not completely happy with the appearance of the dogspikes. This will all be sprayed with grey acrylic car primer before final painting then ballasting.

Soem prototype inspiration-



Any comments, suggestions or examples of flat bottom track welcome.

 

[Jordan]

How much wider is the rail head of 7mm Code 100 than 4mm Code 100? I was aware that there is a different Code 100 for each scale, but not being too bothered myself about it, having lots of OO/HO track to hand, & most importantly being a cheapskate, I didn't go for the 'proper' Code100 myself.
Again with spikes, possibly it depends on how hard you look? I started off with Peco Spikes (IL13 I think) which really are overscale, & almost give the effect of chaired track to my eyes, yet once painted along with the rail they show up much less, & I'm sure ballasting & scenics will help further. Anyway I went to Peco track pins (SL-14) which are much finer & less conspicuous. They have a round head, of course, but for me were a much cheaper option than importing spikes from the US.

Rather than the spike head shapes, what stands out to me now is if tie plates are missing. My one layout "Schiller Point" has hand-spiked track, but done a few years ago before I really researched properly, & the lack of tie plates now irks me a bit. Although I am using Grandt Line tie plates myself in places, for much of my track I just cut my own from thin brown card. Makes a good enough impression from 'usual viewing distances'
Full respect though to you guys doing things properly. It's nice to see all these new hand-spiked track Threads coming up on WT recently!

 

[Overseer]

I will have to measure the rail and take some photos to show the difference. Not having callipers to hand in the office I checked with the steel rule and the head looks like somewhere around 1.3mm. I have used normal Code 100 rail in the past as well and will again in some situations. I have also used Marcway Code 90 rail as it is closer to the height I need for 60lb rail. There were different profiles even in the same weight of rail, here the 60lb C and D rails had narrower heads than the later 60lb AS rails so it is a case of deciding which available rail is nearest.

I hadn't mentioned tie plates as I model the period before they were introduced so they aren't something I need to worry about modelling. They became widespread during the 1920s as trains became heavier as they increase the surface area on the top of the tie and reduce compression of the timber, especially important in the US with pine sleepers. In Australia sleeper plates were adopted first for the heavier main lines then spread to the light lines but some branches survived into the 1980s never having had sleeper plates installed. The following scan may be of interest, the first is circa 1910 showing adzed seats on the sleeper to provide the 1:20 cant of the rail and the other a number of sleeper plate arrangements for double shoulder, single shoulder and flat plates.

 

[Jordan]

I didn't mean it as criticism re lack of tie plates, & I'd forgotten the Era you're modelling too must pay more attention... speaking of which, I've been looking close-up at those pics of your awesome turnout. The frog is isolated, isn't it? bu99ered if I can see the gaps in the rails!!

 

[Oz7mm]

May I join this thread, Overseer?

I model NSWR in about 1960 in Scaleseven. I have built a few lengths of test track so far and one turnout. I have used the Canadian sugar pine sleepers from the ARHS in Sydney and also my own sleepers cut from obeche. I have found the obeche tends to be prone to splitting and breaking so will go with something harder. The issue is whether to pre-drill the sleepers and if so, how then to stick them down accurately to the template so the holes line up. The alternative would be to preassemble plain track panels. No decision yet but JB of this parish has started applying his fertile imagination to the problem. Spiking pliers from Micro Mark are an invaluable tool.

Here's a short length - not every spike is there.



Rail initially was Code 125 from Micro Engineering but I have also been using the same from Karlgarin (the Code 125 shapes are exactly the same according to Richard McLeish) as it is significantly less yellow in appearance. I will also use code 100 in the odd siding. Spikes from Micro Engineering. Richard is also about to launch some superb cast brass fishplates.



Picture evidence suggests that on secondary lines sleeper plates were not always present so I may not include them. I haven't so far. If I were to do so, I would be tempted to get them etched. with a raised line to created the cant in the rail - food for thought.

I'm about to embark on a reasonable sized layout so I need to develop a robust and fairly quick method of tracklaying.

For pointwork I have milled a couple of crossing jigs similar to those sold by C & L and the S7 Group. These have been done to take the ME / Karlgarin rail so I measured it. The head of the Code 125 is 1.4mm and the Code 100 is about 1.35mm. Sorry about the vague second figure



1:6 crossing jig



A fairly rough 1:6 turnout built for rolling stock testing rather that beauty

John

 

[JimG]

Rather than the spike head shapes, what stands out to me now is if tie plates are missing. My one layout "Schiller Point" has hand-spiked track, but done a few years ago before I really researched properly, & the lack of tie plates now irks me a bit.

When did tie plates come in to use? I am aiming at fairly lightweight track with no tieplates but on a quick Google after reading your message I see that tieplates apparently came into use in the US early in the 20th century with the increase in weight in locomotives and rolling stock. I could use thin styrene sheet for tieplates and press the CNC mill into use to cut and drill them. The only problem I can see is painting the stark white styrene plates and I'll maybe look for an alternative material which is is closer to dark, rusty brown in colour.

Jim.

 

[Oz7mm]

Jim

I would etch the tie plates, half etching away all but a strip along one edge to create the cant. You can then also etch the holes. You would get a lot on a sheet. If the idea appeals, I would be happy to draw them and any takers would be welcome to a sheet. No point creating more than one phototool.

John

 

[Dog Star]

... Australian practice is similar to US practice but differs in a few fundamentals, the most obvious being the spacing of the sleepers (ties) resulting from the characteristics of the different timber used.

Please expand upon this comment... what timber was used and how / why did that impact upon the PW practices?

The photos of the model and prototype track are delightful, thank you.

 

[Overseer]

John, you are very welcome to join the thread and it is good to see your progress.

Graeme, we may need some US help to provide the definitive answer on US practices and regional variations but most sleepers in the States were softwoods of various types , such as 'Southern Yellow Pine' and Douglas fir plus a sizeable proportion of hardwoods such as any of about 20 species of American oaks and other fairly light hardwoods, even basswood. They were all creosoted to provide longevity but they were nearly all fairly soft and tend to crush quite easily. Therefore they were spaced relatively close together to spread the load over more sleepers. The sleepers tended to be fairly thick as well to increase the resistance to bending. Some heavier railroads used imported sleepers from rain forests in the tropics, and Jarrah and Karri from Australia to enable them to carry the high axle loads.

In Australia the much stronger and more durable Eucalyptus timbers were readily available so were extensively used. In Victoria the timber of choice was redgum, along with ironbark, yellow stringybark and a few others. NSW favoured ironbark and I think Spotted Gum. Western Australia had Jarrah and Karri, both of which were exported all around the world in large quantities. All the commonly used sleeper timbers in Australia are very dense, strong and resist crushing quite well. Therefore they could be thinner and spaced further apart and still cary the required loads. This caused problems during the 1870s when, following US examples, 50lb rail was used on the 'light lines'. It failed quickly as the trains were expected to travel at 50 or 60 mph as they did in Britain rather than 15 mph as was normal in America and the wider sleeper spacings did not provide enough support. The 50 lb rail was all replaced with 60 lb and heavier rail in less than a decade even on insignificant branch lines.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

All the commonly used sleeper timbers in Australia are very dense, strong and resist crushing quite well

Would they have to be termite proof as well, or were/are termites just a pest which was/is lived with?

 

[JimG]

I would etch the tie plates, half etching away all but a strip along one edge to create the cant. You can then also etch the holes. You would get a lot on a sheet. If the idea appeals, I would be happy to draw them and any takers would be welcome to a sheet. No point creating more than one phototool.

Dave,

I'm thinking at the moment. I've pre-drilled all my ties for the spikes with the holes too close together to match the holes on your average tie plate, so I'm swithering at the moment - re-drill or re-make all the ties, or risk the wrath of Jordan and forget about the tieplates. Also remember that everyone else seems to be in O scale/1:48 and I'm in S scale, so would need a photo tool all for myself.

Jim.

 

[Overseer]

I didn't mean it as criticism re lack of tie plates, & I'd forgotten the Era you're modelling too must pay more attention... speaking of which, I've been looking close-up at those pics of your awesome turnout. The frog is isolated, isn't it? bu99ered if I can see the gaps in the rails!!

Don't worry, I hadn't taken it as criticism. The crossing (frog) is isolated, the gaps are at the end of the next length of the rails towards the points(switch rails) so not in the detail pictures and they still need the plastic fishplates to be added.

 

[Overseer]

Would they have to be termite proof as well, or were/are termites just a pest which was/is lived with?

Termite proof is a relative thing. There are lots of different types of termites, each with their preferred timber type. In Victoria the termites that damage sleepers need the right conditions to establish themselves, basically it needs to be damp enough for some rot to grow to soften the timber so well drained ballast goes a long way to extending the sleeper life. It is different in parts of northern Australia, but not as bad as parts of Africa. The Uganda Railway timber sleepers were eaten in months and steel sleepers had to be used instead, except for the salty parts where the steel rusted too fast.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Although I am using Grandt Line tie plates myself in places,

Have you used the Grant Line tie plates with the OO code 100 rail with success?

I didn't even think to check there were two standards for code 100 rail. I just ordered 12 yards from Marcway as it was easier and cheaper. I just hope the rail matches with the Proto 48 switch parts otherwise it'll be Bodge City . .......which is nothing new.

 

[Jordan]

Have you used the Grant Line tie plates with the OO code 100 rail with success?

I didn't even think to check there were two standards for code 100 rail. I just ordered 12 yards from Marcway as it was easier and cheaper. I just hope the rail matches with the Proto 48 switch parts otherwise it'll be Bodge City . .......which is nothing new.

Yes the tie plates match my Code 100, & the ones for Code 125 match my Code 125 rail too - which is from Marcway, so I'm thinking that the differences between 7mm & 4mm Code100 must be minimal anyway. and both codes have matched up well to the Right-O-Way parts I obtained too.
...and no wrath will be expressed if Gentlemen prefer to omit tie plates from their track. Rule No.1 applies at all times!!

 

[Overseer]

As requested by Jordan I have photographed (not very well) some OO/HO Code 100 FB rail with some of the Karlgarin O scale code 100 rail for comparison. I haven't had the measuring implements in the same place as the rail yet so dimensions will have to follow.

OO/HO on left (not sure which brand), O scale on right



O scale on left-

O scale on right-


I also found some Code 125 rail to compare. Not sure which UK brand (could be C&L?) is on the left and Karlgarin in the centre with the O scale code 100 on the right. It looks like the overall dimensions of the two code 125 rails are much the same but the web is a bit finer on the Karlgarin.


I also have code 82 rail from Karlgarin and Right-O-Way which are very similar to the Micro Engineering Code 83 rail so the rail head doesn't look as wide as I would like.

The Karlgarin and Right-O-Way Code 125 and 100 are practically impossible to differentiate and I wouldn't be surprised if they are from the same dies, so buy whichever is easier to get. I think the O scale code 100 rail is worth getting for the improvement in appearance but the code 125 rails are quite similar so whichever is cheapest will do, although the high nickel rail from Karlgarin is a better colour.

This thread doesn't have to be for modellers of non UK prototypes as plenty of light and narrow gauge railways used flat bottom rail, I have a small stash of Peco code 60 for a model of Walberswick on the Southwold Railway at some stage.

 

[Jordan]

An interesting comparison, thanks for taking the trouble to do that. maybe if I hadn't had plenty of 4mm Code100 to hand, I'd have tried to get the 7mm type.
The base is so much wider though, I'm now wondering which size the Grandt Line tie plates are designed for as I said earlier, they seem to fit fine with my Code100. They do say on the sprue that they are O scale Code100 as well. If HO spikes are so small, I wonder if HO tieplates for Code100 are much smaller than these.... not that it matters to me; I wouldn't contemplate hand spiking track in HO.

 

[Overseer]

On a not so happy note, Lou Cross, the proprietor of Right-O-Way died in early January and the website says none of his products will be available for 120 days. Right-O-Way have been the only US source for O scale rail and track details for many years and lots of models would not have been possible without the rail and cast frogs etc. Hopefully the range will be taken over and continue to be available.

 

[Jordan]

According to the OGR Forum the R-O-W range has been taken over, outstanding orders will be met, & it will be available again
The 120 days is some legal requirement of the State of California apparently
Hopefully the new owner will get the range easily available online, as I had to jump through a few hoops - helped massively by Norm at Protocraft - to get parts to the UK.

 

[Jay Criswell]

News on Right-O'-Way coming soon. Everything listed in the 2015 catalog should be available at that time.

Jay