Fun with <gasp> Unitrack!

[Denver Road Doug]

Dave, great job with the Unitrack.   I am using it for my current layout and hope I can get similar results to yours or what I was able to come up with in my layout thread. (on a consistent basis)   Like you, I would love to be throwing down Atlas C55 but for now it's not in the cards.

There's such a gamut of what can be accomplished with the various track lines available, I would hope that nobody gives up on building a layout based on what "they" say doesn't work or doesn't look good.   I've seen Atlas C80 look off-the-charts good, I've seen a layout that made me forget about the tie spacing of Peco, and I've seen Atlas and ME C55 on a layout that otherwise made small rail a moot point....might as well have been 3 rails....yet, trains still rolled and fun persisted.   

[chicken45]

WHOA WHOA WHOA. WHOA. WHOA.
Isn't code 40 too small for Pennsy main line anyways? Atlas C55 is pretty much dead on, isn't it? Right down to the tie spacing.

[pjm20]

WHOA WHOA WHOA. WHOA. WHOA.
Isn't code 40 too small for Pennsy main line anyways? Atlas C55 is pretty much dead on, isn't it? Right down to the tie spacing.

Nope. Code 40 is close to 115 lb rail and Code 55 is close to 170 lb rail. Look for yourself: http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRrailsizes.html

[DKS]

WHOA WHOA WHOA. WHOA. WHOA.
Isn't code 40 too small for Pennsy main line anyways? Atlas C55 is pretty much dead on, isn't it? Right down to the tie spacing.

Code 40 = perfect mainline. This is why I had custom Code 25 "rail" made, so I could do more accurate sidings and lightweight shortlines. (Those days may, sadly, be behind me.)

[pjm20]

Code 40 = perfect mainline. This is why I had custom Code 25 "rail" made, so I could do more accurate sidings and lightweight shortlines. (Those days may, sadly, be behind me.)

Do you have any left?

[robert3985]

Code 40 = perfect mainline. This is why I had custom Code 25 "rail" made, so I could do more accurate sidings and lightweight shortlines. (Those days may, sadly, be behind me.)

Maybe code40 is "perfect" for your mainlines DKS, but it equals rail that's 6.4" tall, which would be close to 110lb. to 115lb. rail, which varies in height (depending on the manufacturer) from 6 1/4" to 6 5/8" tall. which is not "perfect" for anybody who is modeling modern class 1 or steam era class 1 railroads.

I model the UP during the Big Boy era and 115 lb rail would have been very unreliable for the UP's mainlines from the 1940's through today.

Shortly before the Big Boys were ready to be delivered in 1941, UP re-aligned tracks from Cheyenne to Los Angeles, and laid new 131 lb. rails where Big Boy was to be cleared to run.  131 lb. AREA rail is 7.125" tall, or .0445" in N-scale.  Rounded off, code 40 is then .005" too short for UP mainline rail in the Big Boy era (1941 through 1959).

On the other hand, code 55 rail is app. .010" too tall, which is even more out of scale height-wise than code 40 is for 131 lb. mainline rails. Code 55 being too tall, code 40 being too short for UP mainline rails.

However, since code 55 and code 40 rails are all that's available rail-wise with a "rail" cross-section, putting up with code 55 being a scale 1 1/2" too tall for mainline rail, and using code 40 for sidings and branchlines (near-perfect for UP's 115 lb. "medium duty" rail) is what is "ideal" (and available) nowadays for those who are not code 80 "track-ignorers"  .
 
Readily available code 30 ribbon-rail (no "rail" cross-section) will allow for "light duty" trackwork and isn't that difficult to hand-lay.  But, as far as I know, it has several disadvantages, (1) being its elongated, flattened "oval" shape, with round top and bottom and straight, flat sides.  The rounded bottom means either a bigger glob of solder must be used, or more PCB ties (like every third one rather than every fifth) to make sure it'll stay upright during normal use,  and some type of jig to make sure the "rail" is vertical before soldering.  The "railhead" being rounded, on the other hand, gives it a very nice appearance after it's laid, painted/weathered/ballasted since the tops of real rail are more rounded than either code 55 or code 40. (2) The flat sides can be seen to have no "rail" profile, and this bothers some people when they see photos of it.  It bothers me too, but...when I'm watching trains (with just my naked eyeballs) run on hand-laid, painted/weathered/ballasted track, I don't notice the lack of a profile on the sides...at all.

My fellow train-crazy Gregg Cudworth is building the entire RGS in Nn3 in a double-decked layout that occupies his entire basement, and hand-laying all of his track in code 30 ribbon-rail.  It's VERRRRY impressive, and his trains run just fine through his hand-laid stub and regular turnouts.

Do you have any left? (referring to DKS code 25 "rail")

I think Gregg gets both his pre-gapped "sleepers" (ties) and ribbon rail from the 2mm Scale Association ( http://www.2mm.org.uk/products/shops.php?shop_num=1 ) in Great Britain.  You have to be a member to order from them, but pre-gapped "sleepers" come in a few lengths and are 5 Pounds for a package of 500, and a 10 metre coil of code 30 ribbon-rail is 4 Pounds.

Code 30 rail represent prototype 75 lb. rail, which varies in height from 4 13/16" tall to 4 15/16" tall, and would be considered "light duty" rail for standard gauge track.

I'm trying to think of a spot to lay some code 30, but prototypically where I model, track was never less than "medium duty" until you got several miles out on the Park City Branch, which I am not yet modeling, so code 40 is just right.

Code 80 is app. .036" too tall (almost half a foot) for 131 lb. UP mainline track and is clearly unacceptable for me.

HOWEVER, on some of my good train buddies' layouts, they've chosen to use code 80, and I work on their layouts regularly...and I just hold my nose and lay whatever they want, but paint/weather/ballast it just like I do my code 55, and hand-laid code 40 on my home layout.  The painting/weathering/ballasting does go a long way to making the funky ties not-so-noticeable.

But,  ( ),  I do not see why anybody thinks (including Dave) that laying code 80 track is "easier" than laying code 55.  The only functional difference is the height of the rails and the size of the rail-joiners.  Everything else should be identical.  Why is laying code 55 rail more difficult anyway???  In my experience, the principals are the same, and good track-laying practices are also identical except ME flex will stay in the shape you bend it and not flop around.

In any case, I refer this thread and other articles about your layout Dave to a lot of beginners out there who are creating spaghetti bowls as an example of what to do when building a small layout.  Other than your track,     it's really a great example for a lot of model railroaders.   

[Dave V]

Bob,

Having laid code 80 and code 55, I feel somewhat qualified to address your question...which I'm not entirely sure is the "right" question.  I haven't said code 80 is "easier" to lay.  Both take the same mechanics (assuming we're talking flextrack and not Unitrack).  What's different is how much less forgiving finer rail is to minor imperfections in how it's laid.  Finer scale clearances in frogs and guard rails can multiply this "lack of forgiveness."

All I can vouch for is my own experience.  My code 55 in Enola looks fantastic, but backing a 22-car coal drag down the yard ladder is not an experience I relish.

One issue to consider in my case is that if I were to remove the existing code 80 to replace it with code 55, it would be terribly difficult to "smooth out" the former roadbed location (laid on Styrofoam) to the point where I could lay cork and code 55 with no bumps.  OTOH, I could slap Unitrack down with practically no prepwork and have a derailment-proof mainline.

[DKS]

What's different is how much less forgiving finer rail is to minor imperfections in how it's laid.

This. Having laid everything from Code 25 up through Code 80 (I've even laid some Code 15 rail for T Gauge!), I can vouch for the fact that the subroadbed and roadbed must be increasingly more accurate as the rail weight drops. Indeed, when laying Code 25 (and often Code 40), I'll use thick sheet styrene for the roadbed to help ensure it's flat and true. Code 80 track can "float" across many imperfections with no ill effect.

...for those who are not code 80 "track-ignorers"  .

I must assume, then, that you're a "flange ignorer." After all, scale flanges are only about 1" deep. How many of your wheels have  0.00625" flanges? 

[R L Smith]

Mike C,

Although it is admittedly tedious to paint the concrete ties, it isn't difficult.  I reached the point where I could manage three feet of double-track in one sitting before having to take a break.  (I painted mine at the workbench prior to installation.)  It isn't real obvious in the second view due to the camera angle, but that is the super-elevated curve section.

Ron

[robert3985]

I must assume, then, that you're a "flange ignorer." After all, scale flanges are only about 1" deep. How many of your wheels have  0.00625" flanges? 

Nope.  I could be a "pizza cutter" ignorer if I just ran them instead of choosing to run what are the smallest effective and commercially available flanges, but there's not a pizza cutter on my layout, each wheel being equipped with the lowest practical flange I can get or turn.

The equivalent of your "flange ignorer" would be a "rail ignorer".  Not a "code 80 ignorer" which involves ignoring tie height, tie width, tie length, spikehead details, rail height, rail profile, track floppiness (a contributor to Dave's cut problem), prominent nail holes and most importantly, the fact that there is better looking, and equally well-functioning commercially available track out there.

Ignoring flanges only involves ignoring their height.

Bob,

Having laid code 80 and code 55, I feel somewhat qualified to address your question...which I'm not entirely sure is the "right" question.  I haven't said code 80 is "easier" to lay.  Both take the same mechanics (assuming we're talking flextrack and not Unitrack).  What's different is how much less forgiving finer rail is to minor imperfections in how it's laid.  Finer scale clearances in frogs and guard rails can multiply this "lack of forgiveness."

All I can vouch for is my own experience.  My code 55 in Enola looks fantastic, but backing a 22-car coal drag down the yard ladder is not an experience I relish.

One issue to consider in my case is that if I were to remove the existing code 80 to replace it with code 55, it would be terribly difficult to "smooth out" the former roadbed location (laid on Styrofoam) to the point where I could lay cork and code 55 with no bumps.  OTOH, I could slap Unitrack down with practically no prepwork and have a derailment-proof mainline.

Dave, I wasn't suggesting that you rip up your code 80 and replace it with code 55, and I can see where ripping it up and replacing it with stiff Kato Unitrack would be much less work, since that's the single main benefit if Unitrack...it's easier.  I was talking about starting anew, with a new layout and new subroadbed and new roadbed.  All things being equal other than the track height, I still don't see any differences in difficulty...even if less-tall track is more sensitive to roadbed irregularities.  Just make sure there are as few irregularities as possible...which holds true for any "code" doesn't it?

However, if I were in your shoes and wanted to rip up old substandard track that was giving me problems, I'd want all that effort to be rewarded by replacing it with something that looked markedly improved.  Replacing Atlas 80 with Kato Unitrack (painted/weathered/ballasted to look like Atlas 80) seems like a lot of effort for very little reward, especially when taking close-up photos of your accurate kit-bashed, or brass Pennsy engines sitting on that funky-profiled rail that Kato uses for Unitrack.

Seems to me that if you want stiff track, to compensate for subroadbed irregularities, and don't care about the tie dimensions, Peco 55 is the ticket.  You get extra stiff track, flex, a huge selection of diamonds and turnouts, pretty good reliability (especially Electro-Frog turnouts and if you shim the guard rails for NMRA spec wheel gauge), a visible rail profile that's better than either Atlas 80 or Kato Unitrack, a visible rail height that's pretty close to Pennsy 175 lb. rail, and very small spikehead details.  Other than the funky tie dimensions and spacing, it looks pretty good, and mucho better than either Atlas 80 or Kato Unitrack.  And as a bonus...Mike Danneman uses it, so you're in good company. 

[wcfn100]

and I've decided I won't be able to draw my own code 45 rails (although I would LOVE to be able to!).

That would be true dedication considering ME rail is actually code 43.   

*I only hope this information won't cause too much of a disturbance in anyone's magical play world.   I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

Jason

[robert3985]

That would be true dedication considering ME rail is actually code 43. 

Jason

I bought my rail from Railcraft a long time ago.  It's code 40 according to my digital as well as my dial calipers.

(Edit)  Just for $hits and giggles, I decided to measure more of my "code 40" rail.  I also have a dozen or more 3' pieces that are .039", but none exceed .040".  I decided to measure some new (ME not Railcraft) code 40 weathered track (after buffing off the weathering), and the rails are indeed .043" tall!!! 

Now I am REALLY in a quandary!!     Jason, I don't know whether to thank you or curse you!! 

[robert3985]

That would be true dedication considering ME rail is actually code 43.   

Having confirmed this fact with newly purchased ME code 40 track, I must concede your point DKS.  Code 40 (which is nowadays really code 43) IS INDEED the PERFECT mainline rail!!...since it is only .0015" too short for UP mainline prototypically correct 131 lb rail!!!  That's only 1.5 mils people!!!  That's a freakin' quarter inch too short in N-scale!! 

Luckily, I still have a big batch of Railcraft code 40 rails that are indeed actually .040" and .039" tall, so I'll be using that for my hand-laid code 40 medium duty trackage.

Next observation is...ME code 40 (43) won't allow several popular engines to run on it because the spikeheads are too tall and interfere with the flanges.  These are NOT pizza cutter flanges, but not exactly low-pro either.  You can sand the ME spikeheads down, but it's a PITA.  Time to pray for mo' actual low-pros on motive power....

[VonRyan]

No low-pros please. I like my trains to stay on the track.

In other news... Am I the only person who's jaw hit the floor when I saw that DKS has laid code 15 "rail"....
I've read pretty much all his stuff but don't recall ever seeing anything about code 15...
I think I need to switch to a bigger scale... Which would mean doing something like EM or P4, or going all out and do 7mm. That would also mean ditching modelling the US.


I'm still trying to figure out how to have even just one wagon wheel made for my N-4mm modelling, but nothing commercial seems to be small enough and yet be able to function.

[robert3985]

No low-pros please. I like my trains to stay on the track.

That's why I have low-pros on everything.  So I don't have derailments.  I like my trains to run on my code 40, code 55 and hand-laid turnouts.  Low-pros and proper, exact gauging are the ticket, and unless I knock an engine off the track, they never come off.  I find that pizza cutters are much more likely to derail because they're more sensitive to stray stuff between the rails...like stray ballast, bug carcasses, coupler dongles, and various things that fall off trains or come unglued from the track.  That's because there's less clearance between the flange OD and the ties with big, ol' pizza cutters.

Just sayin'