Tehachapi, BC

[ednadolski]

PS I'm still trying to think thru the grinding thing.  There's that small voice in my head that keeps saying there's got to be a way....

Well I've been working on this rail grinding idea as a background task and I have an update to share.   I came up with this custom grinding guide that I had made up at a local machine shop.   It's simply a bar of aluminum with a round cutout for a grinding bit, a guide to fit between the rails, and some slots for machine screws to attach to the Dremel.   The main idea is to grind away the field side edge of the railhead while leaving the top of the rail and the gauge side untouched.   The guide is adjustable, so I was trying for a railhead width of about 0.020"-0.021", which is much closer to scale railhead width of about 3" for 141 lb. rail.  (The typical ME C55 is about 0.028"-0.029", which scales out to over 4.6").  Then all it takes is a little deburring with a sharpening stone, some paint, a bit more polish with some 800 grit paper,  and here is a comparison with some unmodified ME C55 flextrack:




Here is another shot, this time include a small sample of handlaid track with C40 rail.




Here are a couple of pics of the guide itself, with the milling bit chucked into the Dremel:






There are a few drawbacks.  The process isn't especially quick, but it's not particularly laborious either.   You have to be careful to move the guide smoothly, without stalling/tipping/swaying, in order to get a smooth grind.   And of course it cannot work on commercial turnouts, you have to hand-lay your own from ground rail taken from flextrack.   And of course, the machine shop work to make the guide doesn't come cheap either  (call me an   ) 

Overall, I think this sort of thing is best applied to those cases where it will make the most difference.  But I don't know of any other way to achieve this sort of look in N scale.

Cheers,
Ed

[DKS]

How does that guide handle curves?

[ednadolski]

How does that guide handle curves?

It doesn't.   The flextrack has to be ground straight.   My thought was to lightly glue/tack down the track onto say a piece of plywood to grind it, and install afterwards.   Or perhaps come up with some kind of simple holding jig.

I suspect the milling bit won't care much for rail joiners either.   I also find it easier to paint before installation, since once installed it can be harder to see or reach.

Ironically, this sample track was already installed & ballasted before I ground it.

Ed

[Andrew Hutchinson]

Now that's neat!  Do you like the side profile afer removing ~.008" from one side only? 

Andrew Hutchinson

[GaryHinshaw]

100 a$$hat points to you for pursuing this Ed!  The result looks really cool.  I too am curious about what the side profile looks like, but from the top it looks great (though we still have those humongous rail clips to deal with...).

My plan is to obfuscate the problem: I'm going to leave the blackened rail as is:



and let the wheels wear the finish down.  Hopefully it only wears on the inside...  Time will tell.  One ameliorating factor is that my upper deck track is all near eye level, so the width is less obvious.  Maybe by the time I get to the lower level, I'll try this out. 

Still need to glue that ballast down and weather the track, but turnout builds and other distractions have gotten in the way.

Cheers,
Gary

[wazzou]

Gary H had the thesaurus handy for this post.  That's really taking the search for prototype fidelity to the next level Ed.  Great effort.

[ednadolski]

100 a$$hat points to you for pursuing this Ed!

Thanks!   Another step toward Premier Executive status!   

I too am curious about what the side profile looks like

Here is a closeup shot.  (Sorry, my indoor lighting isn't too great).   Looks to me like in this test, the milling bit actually cut slightly into the web of the rail:



This was set with a 0.020" spacer.   I'll try it with the 0.022" spacer and see what kind of difference that makes.

Other than the closeup shots, it seems that the 'flattened' profile isn't much noticeable, esp. in-person with the track painted and weathered.  Overall the trade-off works for me, since the wider railhead is the polished/shiny/reflective part and thus is apparent to me every time I look at my layout.

BTW Gary have you tried the new Woodland Scenics Tidy Track paint markers?   I used the Steel Rail one on this track, and it was much easier & faster than painting all those clips with a brush.

Still need to glue that ballast down

That ballast is looking really good, better to my eye than the AZRM that I used (which looks more like sand).  Is that the Smith & Sons?   I couldn't find the S&S on Scenic Express, but I was wondering if either of these are the same thing?   It's really hard to tell anything from the SE website photos.

http://www.sceneryexpress.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SE0163
http://www.sceneryexpress.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SE0363

Cheers,
Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks for the shot Ed - I reiterate my admiration for your desire to push the envelope!  I'm guessing that the ME code 55 rail was originally intended for HO use, in which case the width is probably appropriate. (?)  Still hoping that NZT will step into the fine-scale track market.   

RE the WS track pens, do those have any clever guides, or is it just a free-hand paint pen?  I'm intrigued.  By the way, what kind of solvent does the pen use?  When I tried using a Sharpie long ago, all the work dissolved when it came time to wetting the ballast with alcohol...

RE the ballast, I tend to agree that the mix you have looks a bit sandy.  I'm using Penn/Ohio #50 blend which looks just right to my eye in both opacity and grain size.  Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question, but I need to find out soon, before my current supply runs out.  When Scenic Express first switched from S&S to their own house brand, they offered Penn/Ohio specifically.  I have quarts of both, and they're effectively identical:



I also have a quart of S&S light grey, which is too light for my needs.  I suspect the new SE light grey is the same as the S&S light grey, and is probably not what you want.  My guess is their blended grey is similar or identical to Penn/Ohio, but I don't know for sure.  (Anyone?)  It might still also be possible to buy from S&S directly, at least it was in Jan 2009.

-gfh

P.S. Nice box car!

[Coxy]

Ed, really interesting approach to realism! Innovation knows no bounds.

The ground c55 looks a lot like c40. Thinking about overall effort to achieve that look, would it be better to just handlay in c40? Or are there reasons why you would lay c55 and then grind (assuming railhead grinding is straightforward)?

General note: Reducing the cross-section of the rail head will proportionately reduce the contact area for wheels. There will likely be some reduction in pulling power for locomotives especially on 2.2% grades, and probably some reduction in overall wheel noise on the ground rail.

(Fun trivia, modern six axle units have a rail contact area about the size of 12 quarters!)

- SJC

[ednadolski]

I'm guessing that the ME code 55 rail was originally intended for HO use, in which case the width is probably appropriate. (?)

Yes, the C55 height and railhead are exactly right for 75 lb. rail in HO scale.

Still hoping that NZT will step into the fine-scale track market.   

Would love to see that!  I'm not too sure what it would take to have rail custom-drawn -- and then any existing flextrack molds likely would not fit either (except maybe for the ME C40).  Conceptually it sounds straightforward enough, but cost-wise it could be prohibitive.  (As they say, if you want to make a small fortune in the model railroad industry, start with a big one.  OTOH maybe a small team of dedicated & determined  's could pull something off!  )

RE the WS track pens, do those have any clever guides, or is it just a free-hand paint pen?  I'm intrigued.  By the way, what kind of solvent does the pen use?  When I tried using a Sharpie long ago, all the work dissolved when it came time to wetting the ballast with alcohol...

I just used the rail itself as a guide, and ran the pen along while trying to lightly touch the tops of each clip.   Took me a few passes to get the right touch, but not much magic there.

Not sure what the solvent is, tho since WS makes this I'd think it should least hold up under using their Scenic Cement for the ballast.  It may be a little hard to say, since the ME flextrack seems like one of those plastics that's harder for a paint to adhere.  FWIW I didn't notice any kind of strong smell like from the Floquil pens.  I'll run a quick test with some alcohol and see what happens. 

I suspect the new SE light grey is the same as the S&S light grey, and is probably not what you want.  My guess is their blended grey is similar or identical to Penn/Ohio, but I don't know for sure.

Sounds like they might have just re-branded it.   Time for some more sample testing... 

The ground c55 looks a lot like c40.

Thanks, that was my goal! 

Thinking about overall effort to achieve that look, would it be better to just handlay in c40? Or are there reasons why you would lay c55 and then grind (assuming railhead grinding is straightforward)?

The only reason for me is that I need the concrete tie flextrack, otherwise handlaying the C40 over wood ties would be my preference.

Just for grins I once tried to see if I could slip out the C55 rail from the concrete flex and slip in some C40, but that was not workable.   The C40 rail base is too small, so the rail is loose in the clips and the underlying plastic web becomes visible.  Also, slipping lots of ties off the C55 flex without damaging a bunch of the clips is just too hard for me.

The C40 rail also ends up looking a little undersized with the concrete ties & oversized ME clips.  The right scale height for 141 lb rail would be about 0.046"-0.047", which is nearly right in the middle between C55 and C40.  So either way, the height still will be off by practically the same amount 

General note: Reducing the cross-section of the rail head will proportionately reduce the contact area for wheels. There will likely be some reduction in pulling power for locomotives especially on 2.2% grades, and probably some reduction in overall wheel noise on the ground rail.

I was thinking about that too, but I figure since this isn't any narrower than the C40 railhead, then it should be no worse that just running on C40 rail.

If the loco wheel treads and the railhead are actually tapered like they (in theory) are both supposed to be, then removing the outer portion of the railhead should not matter much since that doesn't come in actual contact with the wheel tread anyway.  I could be totally off-base there, but I don't really have a good way to check.


Na dzrowie!
Ed

[Coxy]

Ed, I think you are right about the tapered wheel treads lessening the difference between c55 and c40. Exact difference would be best determined empirically. Pitty the code40 transplant idea was a bust - clever idea.

Gary, (coming back to our regularly scheduled program now ), what's the forecast for tracklaying? What's your next milestone?

- SJC

[GaryHinshaw]

Ed, I'd appreciate hearing about any solvent tests you try.  I also just played around a bit with some code 40 rail in ME concrete tie strips, but I agree it's pretty hopeless since the rail base is narrower than the clips. It occurred to me that one could glue the rail in after the tie strips are laid, but you'd probably want to put some .006-.008 styrene strip stock under the base (if you can find any) which is kind of sketchy.

In other news, I've been on a bit of a lull lately, but I have just about finished a #10 crossover which will get things in T. BC back on track (literally).  DKS told us that crappy photos are ok for documentation, so here goes nothing (still needs guard rails and some touch-up paint):



This beast is almost 18" long.  I can't wait to route a Z train around a cement drag over it. 

-gfh

[DKS]

 That crossover is a real best. I also like the ruler you're using...

[GaryHinshaw]

Good eye David!   

[Coxy]

Small nit pic - darker ties?