modeling 12:12 rail joints

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

Has anyone modeled 39 or 78 foot lengths of rail with fishplates and at least a nick or groove in the rail, staggered, to simulate 12:12 practice for periods that used bolted rather than welded rail? With metal wheels this ought to sound more authentic.

In looking at photos that have bolted rail, the fishplates are quite noticeable to my eye. I have never been a fan of metal rail joiners that require the eye to ignore something that should not be there, as would an exposed screw head be out of place in the side of a locomotive, for example. So, this would look also look more authentic.

Details West has four and six bolt fishplates. I was thinking of scribing a thin joint in the top of the rail, or filing a nick in it, rather than using a cutoff blade to cut partway through the rail which I would believe would be too wide.

39’ would work out to about 5 3/8" in HO.You could approximate this at six inches and get six rail lengths in a 36" piece of flextrack.

In curving flextrack, one rail will extend past the other. Usually this is cut off opposite the now shorter one, but it could be cut half a rail back (or forward if it was long enough). One rail on the next piece could be shifted along the tie strip of the new piece and threaded into the tie strip of the laid piece.

Staggering the real rail joint may be beneficial on curved flextrack to help minimize kinks.

Using metal rail joiners at the real joints would look odd because they would look different than the others that would just have the applied fishplates. Has anyone soldered rail end to rail end without using metal rail joiners (a soldered version of welder rail)?

You could start off with joints opposed at switches and then have half a length on one side with full lengths thereafter to the next switch to achieve staggered joints.

It would be tedious but for rail that can be seen up close, it would have a great look.

Now, I’m sure someone will ask “What about tie plates?” That will certainly

2

I’ve done this on a couple of spur tracks at my club. Once you get everything painted and ballasted, you really can’t see it all that well.

That said, I’m planning on going to that level of detail on my planned shelf layout (if I ever actually get to build it!). Those tie strips that the P:87 store sells are actually from Central Valley (http://www.cvmw.com/). They also make a line of switch kits that can be curved as needed.

3

i tried nicking my rails 39 scale feet apart and staggering the “joints” but the noise drove me nuts.

once i ran out of rail joiners and found that a small lenght of copper wire would serve just a well if it was laid against the web of the rail just below the ball or head. a little flux paste on the rail and the tinned wire soldered up nice and tight. didn’t look too bad either. i don’t have the skill or patience to try butt joints soldered together but i think that would just be asking for trouble anyway.

good thing about getting older is my eyesight is not what it used to be so fine details are becoming less of an issue. hell, i do good to see the other end of a 35 car train.

grizlump

4

I can’t remember the last time I actually saw a tie plate with 4 spikes in it. All near me only have 2. I’ve got some fish plates from Central Valley. I plan to use them after I put down ballast. I think it’s a nice detail.
Another thing from Proto87 are the realistic looking throw bars they sell.

5

On a prioritized list of essential details, cutting slots in the railheads at 20 scale meter intervals is somewhere off the bottom of the page - even below the operating TBM in a window in the fascia…

OTOH, I DO simulate rail joints - by pushing the ties that would support them together, just as my prototype does. Japanese practice calls for squaring the rail joints rather than staggering them, and the two adjacent joints are supported by two closely-spaced ties. Since tie spacing is a lot easier to see than joint bars or slots in the rail, I think that is sufficient.

Actually, my prototype was changing over to continuously welded rail during the month I model. I just jumped the gun and installed it early…

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

6

I like those details. I’ve build one ULTIMATE HO TURNOUT from PROTO:87.

More at my Diamond Valley.

And I’ve used rail joints too.

I didn’t know they shoud be staggered. :angry:

To simulate this I cut only the top of the rail head.

Wolfgang

7

If you want all those nicks and cuts in your railheads go for it. Th my mind that’s just that many more things to grab the wheel flanges and cause derailments.

8

[quote user=“rioplumas”]

Has anyone modeled 39 or 78 foot lengths of rail with fishplates and at least a nick or groove in the rail, staggered, to simulate 12:12 practice for periods that used bolted rather than welded rail? With metal wheels this ought to sound more authentic.

In looking at photos that have bolted rail, the fishplates are quite noticeable to my eye. I have never been a fan of metal rail joiners that require the eye to ignore something that should not be there, as would an exposed screw head be out of place in the side of a locomotive, for example. So, this would look also look more authentic.

Details West has four and six bolt fishplates. I was thinking of scribing a thin joint in the top of the rail, or filing a nick in it, rather than using a cutoff blade to cut partway through the rail which I would believe would be too wide.

39’ would work out to about 5 3/8" in HO.You could approximate this at six inches and get six rail lengths in a 36" piece of flextrack.

In curving flextrack, one rail will extend past the other. Usually this is cut off opposite the now shorter one, but it could be cut half a rail back (or forward if it was long enough). One rail on the next piece could be shifted along the tie strip of the new piece and threaded into the tie strip of the laid piece.

Staggering the real rail joint may be beneficial on curved flextrack to help minimize kinks.

Using metal rail joiners at the real joints would look odd because they would look different than the others that would just have the applied fishplates. Has anyone soldered rail end to rail end without using metal rail joiners (a soldered version of welder rail)?

You could start off with joints opposed at switches and then have half a length on one side with full lengths thereafter to the next switch to achieve staggered joints.

It would be tedious but for rail that can be seen up close, it would have a great look.

Now, I’m sur

9

Thanks to all for your input. [tup]

I would like to model WP c. 1954 (Feather River). I have not checked actual rail lengths for that road that era so I went with a general question based on general rail length of that period.Today UP today uses welded rail and concrete ties except at switches-also a nice look. I’m more interested in the look of the rail being right rather than the length being 33 feet or 39 feet–as I said, 6 inches (or about 43 1/2 feet) would not be a problem with me.

This would be more of a diorama than a layout, a vignette, so realistic rail details is a consideration. I would hope that this could grow some day to be a piece in something than can operate. The look would include tie plates, fishplates, and staggered rails. After seeing the CVT and Proto 87 web sites, it appears possible.The switch details look great.

I like the idea of not using rail joiners, or using half length ones. I have never heard of someone not using rail joiners, so that is new to me.

It appears that the Proto rail is placed unto the tie plates and “spike heads” are folded over with a nail set so I guess one could solder feeder wires to the underside of the rail and pass the wires through holes between ties and make the electrical connection invisible after ballasting.

[%-)]Question: If one goes Proto 87 on the trackwork, rails and switches, does one also need Proto 87 wheel sets or can I keep my investement in non-Proto Intermountaim metal wheels?

10

I don’t know whether you want steam or diesel power or both. IMHO, 1954 was a very good year. Diesel is much, much easier to model in P87. NWSL and others have replacement wheel sets, and many model diesel drives have enough “slop” to provide the requisite equalization for P87 operation. Cars were still a good length to permit reasonable curve radii in P87.

Agreed. Note that the details are available for both NMRA-spec and P87-spec turnouts.

Jack Work suggested it in his April 1963 Model Railroader article, “Birth of a Turnout”. The article was my guide for hand laying turnouts, and I followed his advice on rail joiners without a qualm. I did learn that it was much easier to properly align rail joints on curves with