I’ve been able to find good sources for code 70 dual gauge track, but from what I know of rail poundages, I’m going to want atleast code 83 for the main line, unfortunately I don’t know if there are any sources out there that would provide code 83 in dual gauge. For the layout I’m planning there will be a large portion of the main line that will be done in dual gauge, and the standard gauge traffic will include large articulates like big boys. Would I be correct in assuming that code 70, roughly equal to 100 pound rail, would be too small due to the standard gauge requirements? The narrow gauge traffic will consist almost entirely of Rio Grande equipment on the dual gauge sections.
I don’t think I would worry about it. I used code 83 on my standard gauge mainline and then code 70 for the yard. The difference was so small that I am the only one who can tell.
My thoughts:
Not all the rail the large standard gauge steam locomotives ran over was 132lb. I submit there were signficant amounts of 120lb, and perhaps 100lb rail that the behemoths ran on. However, speed restrictions may have been in place on the lighter rail.
Articulated locomotives, due to the number of drivers, probably had less rail loading then a large 4-8-4.
The D&RGW had a section of dual gauge where the narrow gauge rail was not as tall as the common rail. This made for awkward running and very tight clearances from counterweight to rail for outside frame narrow gauge engines.
Model rail tends to be wider through the head in proportion to its height than prototype rail. Atlas rail in particular has a wider than scale head. If you are looking on the track, you see the head width rather than the rail height. So if your normal vantage point is from above rather than looking level with the track, using a smaller than scale height will actually give a better appearance.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
My thoughts:
Not all the rail the large standard gauge steam locomotives ran over was 132lb. I submit there were signficant amounts of 120lb, and perhaps 100lb rail that the behemoths ran on. However, speed restrictions may have been in place on the lighter rail.
Articulated locomotives, due to the number of drivers, probably had less rail loading then a large 4-8-4.
The D&RGW had a section of dual gauge where the narrow gauge rail was not as tall as the common rail. This made for awkward running and very tight clearances from counterweight to rail for outside frame narrow gauge engines.
Model rail tends to be wider through the head in proportion to its height than prototype rail. Atlas rail in particular has a wider than scale head. If you are looking on the track, you see the head width rather than the rail height. So if your normal vantage point is from above rather than looking level with the track, using a smaller than scale height will actually give a better appearance.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
AFAIK, your only choice in RTR dual-gauge turnouts is still Shinohara code 70. These are with a #6 frog, which could potentially cause trouble with some brass articulateds. That’s another issue to consider.
If you go with custom turnouts, you should be able to order them in code 83, I’d think.
I’m pretty sure that code 100 pound rail could handle an articulated, so nothing really wrong with using code 70 where it operates. Code 70 is a little on the heavy side for NG, but once weathered in the difference between it and code 55 is hard to tell except in close-ups. At normal layout viewing distances, they’re virtually indistinguishable.
I have extensive dual-gauge track on my layout. It’s all Shinohara turnouts and ME track in code 70. My standard gauge is all Walthers/Shinohara turnouts and ME track in code 83. It’s hard to tell the difference, so appearance is unlikely to be an issue with mixing different code track together. You will need to fiddle a bit with rail joiners when mating them, but really no big deal.
Don’t know how much of a difference it makes, but in areas that are standard gauge only I plan on using primarily peco switches. Code 70 will only be used with the narrow gauge equipment in dual gauge areas. In areas where it’s only narrow gauge I’ll probably use something smaller (55 maybe?) and in areas where it’s standard gauge only I’ll probably go with code 83.
I believe that he is looking for dual gauge code 83 turnouts.
BK makes dual gauge in code 83. You have to spike them to the ties and unsolder the straps.
Good luck
Paul
If you want to save a bit, here’s a trick you might try.
Lay standard gauge flex. Then position a rail properly gauged for your narrow gauge of choice and secure it with track nails BETWEEN the ties. Run a BIG, HOT soldering tool slowly from one end of the center rail to the other, pressing it down (gently!) into the tie tops. Finally, drill the ties (undersize holes) and secure the center rail with fine spikes before removing the track nails. Takes time, but a yard of Atlas brown-tie flex and a yard of stick rail is a bunch less expensive than the Shinohara 3-rail equivalent.
If you’re feeling courageous you can try a code 70 center rail with code 83 flex, to simulate the latter-day Grande 3-rail line from Alamosa to Antonito. (Experiment with a short scrap section first. Your locos might not like it.)
As for specialwork, my choice is to hand-lay EVERYTHING. If you do, there are all kinds of things that you can assemble yourself that will never be available in a box or bubble-pack. John Armstrong rang the changes on narrow gauge specialwork with his To Hardscrabble, The Hard Way track plan. A lot of the variants have NEVER been manufactured.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - two track gauges, no dual-gauge track)
And it’s fun, here’s my Pueblo & Salt Lake RR. I’ve tailored the Armstrong plan for my room and druthers.
Wolfgang