I’m in the process of building a 14 x 22 ft N Scale Appalachian layout - and have a question regards double track mainline track spacing.
Call me silly, but only half way into track laying (this is only my second layout - still making “new” mistakes!) I thought of crafting a track gauge to measure exact spacing apart of mainline tracks - and i’m using a 1.5" track spacing (1.25" in yards). Previous to using this gauge - I simply measured the tracks as I layed them, which was fairly accurate anyway.
Moving on - some of my tracks are not “perfectly” spaced apart through curves, yards etc, and i’m wondering if prototype typical double track lines are spaced “perfectly” as such anyway?? IE do other modellers concern themselves with such details, or am I simply being to much of a perfectionist here. Laying parallel tracks may seem a simple task, but I find the track slides (even only slightly) during the time in which the glue I use sets…
I have a few areas that i’m considering tearing up because the spacing does not appear “true” for a double track line - or is variation in double track lines fairly common place on the prototype anyway??
Anybody that is willing to provide some input on this one - I would be most appreciative.
Sounds pretty good from what you’ve described, though you might want to rethink the 1.25" yard spacing - especially if you need to get your hands around a derailed car.
anyway, you’re probably going to want larger spacing around curves than on the tangents to make sure things dont sideswipe one another…
I don’t model in N, but 2" to 2.5" spacing isn’t unheard of for HO curves… all depends on car/loco overhang
Thanks very much for those tips! This forum is great! I might try pinning the track as I glue it, and then remove the pins later…
The main point that I was concerned with however, was whether double track on the prototype was actually spaced at a “perfect” distance apart? How did the railroads measure this?? I think at most, some of the distances between tracks on my layout vary from between being exactly 1.5" (or 1.25" in yards) to something like 1.6 or 1.7" on mains in some places due to the track moving while gluing… so what I have is spacing at various places which is not “even” if you get my meaning?
Is this kind of variation in the track spacing prototypical?? Or did railroads have some way to ensure uniform, perfect alignment or double track spacing??
Thanks again to all, and especially to those who replied so quickly! Thankyou.
When first laid, prototype track is very precisely positioned to stakes set by surveyors working to a civil engineer’s diagrams and specifications. Depending on the success (or lack thereof) of the company and the level of maintenance (or lack thereof) practiced on a specific stretch of track, that level of precision deteriorates. A cash-strapped operation that considers track maintenance to be what you do after a derailment can have tangent track that is anything but straight. OTOH, any railroad sufficiently prosperous to still require double track will probably maintain it to a higher standard, especially if it is to be used for high speed traffic.
My trick for laying track is to pre-position everything, using only track nails (thin foam over plywood. For deeper foam, common sewing pins are even better.) Then I lift the track, spread clear caulk and carefully replace the track in the exact same place, track nails into the same holes they came out of. After weighting down the flex until the caulk sets, the track nails (or pins) can be removed. Being terminally lazy, I seldom bother.
In some cases, the distance between parallel tracks depends on the year that the track was put down. Along the Union Pacific Sunset Route, formerly owned by the Southern Pacific, parallel tracks where the second line was installed in the mid-1990’s are much further apart than areas where the parallel lines were put down in the 1800’s or early 1900’s.
My own choice for n scale track spacing is to use 1-1/8 on mainlines and yards, and 1-1/4 on curves. A real railroad yard is a dangerous place as there is very little space between cars. I bring the train out of the yard to change cars rather than waste track spacing for “finger pickup”.
I believe curve spacing should be consistent between the two tracks. If the space varies, it looks like the civil engineer was drunk at the time he put down his markers. I find it best to constantly check rail spacing on straight and curved track to get a consistent spacing which looks much better to the eye. I also make “rail” notches in a piece of scrape brass or plastic and use that to spot check in places, and reposition as needed before pinning the track down in the glue to dry.
It looks as though no more than 1.4" should be sufficient for virtually all N scale cases. The usual prototype spacing is 14’ between center lines. That would equate to 1.05" in N scale.
I joined the forum thirteen and a half months ago and this subject - parallel track spacing - crops up probably at least once a month. Your inquiry, however, is the first I recall having encountered where the question relates to whether or not parallel tracks have to be exactly parallel at all times.
I hope not because I “eyeball” my track spacing both on mainline curves and in the yards. I measure my parallel t
Quick and simple answer lies with a question. What kind of railroad are you modeling? If it’s a prosperous high speed double track mainline, then yes, the parallel tracks will be fairly precise. There are instances where the track may (for one reason or another) change parallel tangents, be it for working around bridge abutments (which could actually be years long gone), areas where coal or water facilities used to be, room for track or right of way features (could be anything, switch stands, dwarf signals, etc.), or anything else I haven’t thought of. OTOH, if your modeling a poorer railroad that has kind of let the track go without regular maintenance, then the track could (eventually) do all kinds of weird things. This is especially true in yards.
Since I’m modeling Southern Railway, they pretty much kept their track in good shape. However, on the (fictional) branchline I’m depicting, since the line was “inherited” in rough shape, they renovated the line, but didn’t (and didn’t need to) re-align the tracks. They simply replaced the bad ties, and releveled and regraded the track (as in, removing the worst of the dips and humps). On a low-speed branch, there is no need for laser aligned perfection, even with long trains of heavy cars. However, there would be a need for (fairly) level track, and good trackwork (as in, good ties, reasonably heavy rail, fairly good ballast, etc.)
Look at some of CSX’s trackage today to see what I mean (or some of Conrail’s former trackage). Some of it’s pretty rough, but still carries heavy trains (at restricted speeds).
I was at the BNSF double track at Cassville, Wisconsin this weekend, and on a curve in the middle of town the tracks are triple and spaced about 20 feet apart. Just outside of town the tracks are double and are spaced quite a bit closer to each other. Another interesting thing was the height af the tracks were different outside of town with the riverside (west) being about 3-4 feet higher than the east track.
BNSF operates mostly freight trains at 45 to 70 MPH in this area. Interestingly, in the 1950’s passenger trains like the Burlington Zephyr and the GN Empire Builder operated at 85 to 100 MPH on the same tracks.
So this and other observations over the years, indicates that designers and civil engineers are constantly changing the track layouts slightly and when re-builds come along changes are not always uniform.
When I built my first layout I used a plastic ruler “18inch” to lay the track on parallel tracks by putting down the first track against the ruler edge to the inside rail of track 1 for the track run. Then I went back to lay the second track with the inside rail against the ruler.this gave me the two tracks parallel with the rail spacing the width of the ruler. For curves I used a set curve template for the inner curve the used 1 inch plastic duct lid cut tothe width of the ruler inserted between the two tracks in the same manner as the ruler on the straight. This gave me an even spacing between tracks of about 1 1/4 inches . On my last layout I used cork roadbed Midwest product and lay the roadbed with 1/4" spacing for the drain down the middle of the roadbed profile and then lay the rail to the split centreline of the roadbed. This looked a lot better as the track wasnot a perfectly straight length which I had from the ruler. where the track had gentle curves both nthe roadbed and rails followed the same path. I use track nails pushed into the roadbed to hold the alignment until the ballasting is complete and then remove all but a few nails. leaving every 3rd on curves to help hold roadbed in place. I have since pulled this down to rebuild to a new format but I will be using the second method to lay the new track with a few other enhancements such as superelevation of curves and more operational sidings and switching. I build in HO so the measurements will be off but the method is the same fo all guages.
Your idea is basically sound I would have used a few Peco six foot way gauge’s these are an inexpensive little plastic gauge the sets the track at six foot spacing it has a scale side and a set track side.
Real double track is perfect except where it isn’t[swg]
You have the right idea trying for perfection on your track its aid to reliable running should not be under estimated.
If it looks wrong to you then it is fix it or you will not like what you see every time you look at it.
Have you thought about temporary pining the track to hold it in place while the glue dries.
Thanks very much for all your replies, they have been extremely helpful.
I think, after reading many of the posts, that I’m more comfortable with at least some variation in the track spacing, and although I try to keep to 1.5" on curves, and 1.25" in yards, this does vary slightly as if the civil engineer was a little bit, well, let’s say inexperienced?! None of the spacing variations are too extreme however, so i’m happy to leave it as it is, and won’t let it bother me.
The important thing is that to the eye, the spacing looks fairly good, which is the critical part, although one would argue that the most critical part is operation - but this should be fine also, as i’ve tested Amtrak Superliners and sopme Autorack cars around my curves, and everything regards to spacing is fine.
I have now made myself a spacing gauge out of a plastic ruler also, just as suggested by some. This is a great tool, and I will use it for the rest of my track laying on this layout, and also on future layouts.
Thanks you all very much again.
Kind Regards,
OzeBrad (Modelling CSX ex B&O Mainline between Cumberland, MD and Grafton, WV.)