I hope this helps someone.
Rail Code and Scale Weight
Closest scale weight [pounds per yard]
Rail
Code N HO S O
172 156
148 132
125 156 100
100 156 115 75
83 132 90 55
70 100 65 35
55 156 75 40
40 115 40
I really hate to rain on your parade, Stephen; but, like your previous attempts to post tables, this one is impossible to figure out. [%-)]
You really need to post this information as you would a photo. Draw up your table, make it into a .jpg or .bmp file and upload that to a photo-hosting site. Then post the photo here as you would any other photos.
I know you put a lot of work into calculating this information for us, and I’m sure its appreciated. But, as it is now, its unreadable. Sorry. [:(]
chateauricher oh well. I can’t make this website do proper formating. If it doesn’t come out then it doesn’t come out. I suppose people will have to go look it up.
I can’t speak to the other scales, but from all I have read over the years, I think the HO section of your chart might be wrong. It is my understanding - and from actually having codes 100, 83, 70, and 55 on our layout - that they equal larger rail sections than your chart states.
If memory serves (And it usually doesn’t anymore), in HO scale, Code 100 is roughly 155 (Or even larger) Lbs. per yard. Code 83 is roughly 135 Lbs. per yard. Code 70 is pretty close to 100 Lbs. per yard. Code 55 is pretty near to 75-80 Lbs. per yard.
This has been in a number of articles over the years and probably in some on the books MR has published (Maybe the one about builing realistic trackwork?), so it can be checked out pretty easily.
We have Code 100 in our hidden trackage, Code 83 on the main, Code 70 in all passing sidings and some yard trackage, and Code 55 in some of the coal loader trackage. The differences are more noticeable than you might think and the rail sections look about right for where we have them.
See http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-15_1.html for a good table.
Scale weight? You’re joking, right? heh
I don’t think so, scale weight is a very doable thing, even in N scale. I’m thinking about doing this myself (in HO scale).
A 400,000 pound SD40-2 would (in HO scale) scale out at some 9.75 ounces give or take, a hopper scaling out at 4.5 ounces would equate to a car weighing about 185,000 pounds.
Brad
MIKE0659 on my website where the formating stayed it actually says what you just said.
Like I said earlier [and someone else said it too] this forum messed up the formating so to see it properly you have to go to my website. It is in my sig.
GeorgiaShay and twcenterprises on my website and ALSO in an earlier post in this forum, I have made a “scale weight” posting.
Seems like no one goes to my website. They would rather just complain.
Sad, very sad.
FSM1000,
I wasn’t complaining, sorry if it came off that way. I was just offering what I’ve read and been told over the years. I’ll never complain about what someone writes in these forums, even the most accomplished among us can always learn something new.
But I might offer comment or information that I feel is pertinent or helpful. It will never be a flame, put-down,or cheap shot. Everybody gets something different out of this hobby, so we all need to respect that.
What you might have done if it bothers you that no one is going to your website is to reference it in the text of your post. You could have menetioned that it was available there just in case it didn’t format correctly here. This would have been much more effective than complaining about this forum’s formatting in a later post, especially since your post makes it obvious you are aware of a problem with the formatting.
And the advice about posting offered by chateauricher is good stuff. Instead of taking his advice, or thanking him for the effort, you blow him off with another comment about this site.
The simple thing is to make sure your post gets put up correctly since you are offering it as fact, if wrong it could seriously confuse those less expereinced than you. Did it look right in the post preview when you wrote it up?
Thanks for the effort on the information, it’s a pretty sure bet that someone out there was wondering about this and was glad to see it posted here where they could find it easily.
MIKE0659 I understand what you are saying. I didn’t know that the formatting would be messed up until AFTER it was posted. And yes it did look fine in the post peview which is why I posted it. After I thought I must have messed up. However it did it to one other post as well so I don’t do this anymore. Post this type of thing I mean.
As for the weights of the rails if you go to the NMRA site that was posted by ericboone you will see that they are very close. But they don’t make “code 0.92” so I chose code 100 as the next best. I also tried to simplify it as best I could for others to follow.
I wasn’t harping I just come across gruff is all. Typing has little in the way of subtleties that we have when we talk. No intenation [spelling?] or variance so it comes across worse than it is.
I do try to make sure they are as factual as possible. I am one of those wierd people that LIKE reading and studying LOL. Book keeping, accounting, dotting i’s and crossing t’s is fun for me. [told you I was wierd LOL]
Anyhow, the point is if I screwed up I would be the first and fastest to say so.
Thanks MIKE0659 for yours observations. They are appreciated. It is nice to see someone take the time to respond as you have.
Thanks for listening. [:)]