I’ve been reading the various threads here regarding Code 83 versus 100 versus whatever-- I am not asking to rehash all of those other threads. Rather it was said somewhere that the Pennsylvania Railroad used a heavier weight rail closer in weight/size to Code 100 for its main lines. Is that true? (Wikipedia says it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tracks) Did the PRR use the heavier rail consistently in all of its mainline tracks or only in the most heavily travelled portions (and which portions would those be??) Mostly ignoring the various back and forths of Code 55/70/75/100 etc regarding strength, reliability and whatnot-- how “right or wrong” would it look to use Code 100 for main line and Code 83 for yards and sidings? (I understand this is largely a personal aesthetic but I am wondering what other people think).
Next questions-- according to that Wikipedia page (link above), it indicates that it was (is?) a common practice to lay track in segments of about 60 feet and then bolt them together with a joiner. I also note that some railroads welded some sections of tracks beginning in the 20-30’s on up to the present. How common was that? If it was done, under what circumstances was it done? Where was it done (examples)? Does that imply that using sectional track (or short lengths of flex track) would actually be more “prototypical”? (Particularly if you could model the joiner plates?) When real railroads weld joints, do they stagger them like is suggested for model railroads?
A related question-- in reading the various posts on track aesthetics, several people commented on the (un)realism of connecting flex track to a switch-- is this not done in the prototype? Or are prototype switches simply laid in-place (typically) and the joints happen wherever they happen farther down the line and dealt with as in the previous question?
** For the record, I am researching / modelling the Pennsylvania railroad, so answers pertinent to the P
Pick up an issue of MR, look through it, then close it. Now think - what do you remember about each scene? In most cases, as long as the track is done neatly, weathered, and ballasted, with no major kinks or rail gaps, it doesn’t hurt realism. The overall impression is the most important thing.
There’s a place for really excellent track, but it’s more a matter of craftsmanship than realism. Perfect track can make a scene somewhat more realistic, but well-done ordinary track gets you 90% of the way there with less cost and effort.
Even code 100 rail or old-school code 80 N can look fine if you take that care with it. Even snap track can look fairly nice if you are careful to line up the joints and avoid overly mechanical appearances in track layouts. I would recommend using code 83 nowadays, if you’re buying new track, as it does look better and costs no more than code 100. I use code 100 because secondhand stuff is cheap.
Back in the old days, rail was laid in short lengths, bolted together. 39 foot rail was common as it fit nicely on a flatcar. I have heard of experiments with longer lengths and welded rail but don’t know how prevalent either practice was, but now the state of the art is continuous welded rail in long sections. An early method of welding rail used thermite, a mixture of metal powders that could be ignited and burned fiercely, fusing the rails together with molten iron.
There are still many miles of bolted 39-foot rail. I took the Southwest Chief last year and heard that nice clickety-clack for quite a while. Joints are staggered and bolted with bulky steel “fishplates”.
Sometimes the real RRs do use panel track, which is prefab track laid on ties in short sections. It’s put in place, then the rails are slid to stagger the joints, which are bolted together.
I suppose the most realistic technique for laying track switches is to bring the “stock” rails right in and join them to the frog. Prefab switches aren’t unknown on the prototype, although they don’t look exactly like Atlas Snap Switches. I’ve never been able to find out where they store those giant 100 lb grommets, anyway.
Switches can be handlaid that way, but again, that’s a matter of craftsmanship, and while it can make beautiful, flowing track, we can come pretty close with neatly laid purchased track. When you go out and look at prototype track, a lot of it is straight and doesn’t really “flow” (and a little bit of it is horrible, oozing rubbish).
Basically, perfection is wonderful, but a competent ordinary job will get you into the yard limits.
You can always use flex track for dependability and then glue tie bars (fish plates) at 39’ intervals to simulate the old prototype rail lengths. You can even cut shallow “gaps” in the rail to give you the clickety clack sound.
First to this unusual comment that I find most amusing.
A related question-- in reading the various posts on track aesthetics, several people commented on the (un)realism of connecting flex track to a switch-- is this not done in the prototype? Or are prototype switches simply laid in-place (typically) and the joints happen wherever they happen farther down the line and dealt with as in the previous question?
First that is so far fetch its not worth repeating( and its not your fault) because 1)Real railroads does not use FLEXTRACK!!! 2)Flex track can make a smoother curve from the switch and that means less derailments and that is the most important thing.
Now for PRR track and depending what years you are modeling.For the most part PRR track was joint rail and in good to poor shape depending on type of main line-primary or secondary.All to sadly PRR had hundreds of miles of deferred maintenance secondary main line track.
For PRR main line track I suggest C83 for main line and code 70 for yards…However,if I was to model the PRR I would use C83 since I don’t want to model PRR’s deferred maintenance track.
As far as using “snap track”…I have built several switching layouts using snap track and it works quite well…However,flextrack gives you more freedom to shape your track and less track joints that could cause problems.Either one you use calls for good track laying disciplines.
I vaguely recall that the PRR only used 152# rail on the Horseshoe Curve and a few similar spots where rail wear was expected to be excessive and rail failure was not an acceptable option. Total length was in the thousands of feet.
When a present-day railroad is in a hurry to assemble some new track they use pre-laid panels of, “Prototype snap-track,” and pre-laid switches - so don’t let anyone tell you that sectional track isn’t prototypical. Of course, those panels are straight. Curves are still built with appropriate easements (and have far larger radii than can be built into a reasonable model railroad.)
I personally use flex track and hand-lay my specialwork - frequently by sliding ties and bending rail to arrange a suitable site, then building the turnout in place between the existing stock rails (which I don’t notch.)
In the netherworld, I’ve used all Atlas code 100 (some, used in turnout building, stripped from either damaged flex or 18" radius snap-track.) When I surface into the light (some time next year, I hope) I’ll be using Atlas code 83 flex (mostly with concrete ties) and building my specialwork from the lighter rail on wood ties.
Unless you are planning to take close-up photos or videos (like Joe Fugate,) are building museum dioramas or are suffering from an extreme case of nitpickeritis (aka Rivet Counter’s Syndrome,) properly ballasted, nicely weathered Atlas flex, surrounded by reasonable-looking scenery, is the inexpensive solution.
Prototype turnouts are a little more scientifically built and curves and easements mixed in.
With the prototype thinking, the majority of railroads did not use the heaviest rail the pennsy did. This is why Code 83 as it is closer to the most common use. and Code 83 is still “deep flange friendly”.
Heat expansion is why rails would be jointed 39 ft lengths, (as it would also fit in a 40 ft gondola).
Welded sections increased warping problems with heat, but maybe today those issues have been worked out, (not entirely maybe tho)
Size of rail used has more to do with what equipment is being used and economics.
A backwoods logging line may use the smallest possible rail.
Code 100 is cheaper, if thats the way you wanna go, cool, code 83 yards, OK, and still deep flange friendly. Club I was in decided the code 83 route, and still deep flange friendly, be able to run anything, 36" curves and all.
The vast majority of the track on my Santa Fe is code 100 Micro Engineering. Why? Because the railroad construction and track laying started in 1989, code 100 was the standard. I have some code 83 (handlaid when I was working on my MMR) and some code 70 today, but the majority of the railroad remains code 100. I am not about to tear it out and relay code 83, cost and three decks of construction being the main reason. It looks good enough to me, and this is the last railroad I will build.
I never used sectional track, probably never would have.
Mine is also all code 100 for the same reason as Wayne, I chose Model Power NS flex track however, as it only cost 99cents/3 ft and I needed 600 ft, it also had better tie details than the Atlas and a much smaller spike head. I have had no regrets, it has held up perfectly for nearly 20 years.
I don’t hand lay anything, but I do curve my stock Atlas & Peco turnouts to fit the situation, I just cut all the webbing out between the heel of points and the frog. Leave the webbing under the outside straight stock rail. I also shorten it by trimming the diverging rails back to about 1/2" beyound the frog. I call them flex-turnouts.
Mine is also all code 100 for the same reason as Wayne, I chose Model Power NS flex track however, as it only cost 99cents/3 ft and I needed 600 ft, it also had better tie details than the Atlas and a much smaller spike head. I have had no regrets, it has held up perfectly for nearly 20 years.
I don’t hand lay anything, but I do curve my stock Atlas & Peco turnouts to fit the situation, I just cut all the webbing out between the heel of the points and the frog. Leave the webbing under the outside straight stock rail. I also shorten the turnouts by trimming the diverging rails back to about 1/2" beyound the frog. I call them flex-turnouts. An idea from a very old MR.
True. When my wife and I did a cross-country ride from NJ out to Seattle via Chicago and LA I was amazed at how cruddy some of the track work was. I made the comment that if a modeler laid track like the prototype did we’d have derailments like you wouldn’t believe. Kinks, dips, side-to-side wandering, etc.
If the railroads that run trains over that, “Cruddy,” trackwork did so at typical model railroad speed, they would have derailments like you wouldn’t believe.[(-D] Most likely, the speed limit is somewhere south of 20MPH.
Of course, they also have the mass of the rolling stock working for them.
The hardest kind of track to model, and to operate successfully, is the kind with kinks, dips, wandering from side-to-side…[:-^] Happily, my prototype insisted on smooth, well-aligned trackwork (and was willing to spend the money to achieve and maintain it.)[^] It’s a lot easier to model, and infinitely easier to operate over.[8D]
It’s all a matter of semantics and personal preference really. I have my doubts about the age old “code 100 on the main” vs. “code 83 in yard” argument having any real merit. I am a believer in code 83 everywhere because code 100 simply looks “wrong” to me and I never was fooled on any model RR I’ve seen that the 100 main track was anything other than a too bulky model train rail.
As far as any issues with rail joints (ribbon rail vs. section etc) that is really a matter of how much maintenance the railroad has done on the track. Many old sections of track (both mainline and sidings, yards etc) have been updated by simply recycling the existing track by welding the old rail joints and grinding smooth. I’ve seen many sections of track that were date stamped 1958 or older that have been welded into a continuous rail. But again, there are thousands of exceptions and variances to this, depending on any number of issues.
For prototype railroads, track geometry and stability are issues, not necessarily rail joints. The signal department would love no joints at all, but then the track would split and buckle due to expansion and contraction. For what it’s worth, my real life job at Plasser is to assist North American railroads in correcting track geometry using our equipment, so I am not speaking as one who has only read about real life track, but as one who lives by it and on it day to day.
So, in my opinion (for what that’s worth), I encourage you to use only code 83, take care to make it as flawless as humanly possible, and just enjoy running your model train. Visitors will never know the difference![;)]
BTW, I refer you to page 60 of John Armstrong’s “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” (Third Edition) where there is a discussion of the use of “flex track” by the prototype railroad, in this specific instance, Norfolk Southern. And the practice is not limited to them, nor in that one instance. Likewise it can also be prototypical to use “sectional” track on the prototype railroad.
the real life bolted up fishplates/rail joiners are available as an etched overlay to solder or cyano to the web of the rail. i don’t know if they are available stateside, but a few UK based specialisd track suppliers produce and supply them and most offerings are available to members of the ‘scalefour’ society through the society shop. although as the title suggests it is 4mm scale, and not the 3.5mm scale of HO, similar rail sections are used so i would expect the etches to fit.
