Concrete Tie strip for N Scale and Code 40 Rail

[narrowminded]

Putting together the first test print for code 40 branch line wooden tie bed.  Testing rivet and tie plate features especially, fully expecting some edits will be required.   More to follow tomorrow.   

[narrowminded]

Wood ties are moving along.  Got the first test batch through, made some edits for detail, and the next print is in the machine now.  I'm quite happy! 

It's designed as branch line with 22" tie spacing, and the siding track at 24" tie spacing will be immediately following.  This will be cool.   Nice code 40 for the masses.

And I guess code 40 HOn30 should be next?

[narrowminded]

Test print is done.  I'm very happy with the whole thing, tie spacing and all.  I will look it over more over the next few days and see what I can see as well as get some critique from the experts but I think this is shaping up nicely.

In the pics you can see the staggered tie placements for a more prototypical look.  Also the tiny tie plates.  Even though I already added to the plate and spike dimensions for basic visibility I may still want to add some more to the spikes.  Even under magnification they aren't visually too big... at least to my eye.   The rail gauge on a test piece is on the target dimension of .355"/ .356", right in the middle of the NMRA spec, and that should hold comfortably within .002" every time.

In the pics, where two tracks are shown, one is Atlas Code 55 flex.  Enjoy!

[John]

Looks good ...

[robert3985]

Mark,

Oh man....looking EXCELLENT!!  Love the tiny spikeheads...tiny, but very noticeable...and in a proper spiking pattern too!!...can't see the tie plates yet...and the uneven tie placement is spot-on!

It's amazing what just a bit of research, asking questions, looking at proto-photos and prototype specification will do for the fidelity of our N-scale models!

Now if the major manufacturers would just learn that simple lesson...but here's Mark...filling the void!!

Can't wait to try these out, paint & weather, ballast and take some photos!!

Cheerio!!
Bob Gilmore

[narrowminded]

Thanks @John and @robert3985 .   I'm anxious to see some of these pieces properly installed and detailed.   I already have a few things that closer scrutiny might suggest should be adjusted slightly but literally in the half to a couple of thousandths inch range.

Here are a couple of pics with some different light and setup that show the tie plates a little more clearly.  For me, taking pics is harder than drilling .003" holes!

[John]

Any thoughts on how to make these flex like?

[narrowminded]

Any thoughts on how to make these flex like?

This is flex bed.   Snipping alternate bridging pieces on the outside rail allows it to flex very easily making any radius you'd like.  When laying straights the dual bridged ties help hold a straight line, making it much more manageable.  The bed gets laid complete and then the rails are added. 

It's the same as I had posted on my Nn3 track.  It works very well.  Here is a link to an old post showing the Nn3 as the install method is the same.  And how tight can it curve?   The inner and outer track radius in this Nn3 example is 2 1/2" inner and 3 1/2" outer.  It could be made even tighter if you had something that would negotiate it.    

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=47150.msg619818#msg619818

Edit add: And this one without ballast.  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=47070.msg618063#msg618063

And this one to a video bending rail to set in to tie bed already laid.  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=46808.msg614318#msg614318
Note: That video was the very first time I laid any of this style track bed.  Towards the end is reference to applying diluted glue with a brush.  That can still be done but I have since discovered that a syringe with a fine nozzle (.020"?) yields excellent results.

[robert3985]

Mark,
Thanks a million for the new, sharper photos!   When I first saw them, my immediate thought was that the tie plates are a bit too tall.  It's good to be able to see them, but they shouldn't look like the "chairs" on British rail.  BUT, I decided to look at my stash of prototype photos and see what rail joiners looked like during the transition era and a few years post-transition.  The bigger the rail gets, the more prominent the tie plate gets is the first impression from looking at photos of real tracks.  Also, the taper of the rail joiner is also pretty obvious from the edge of the rail's foot to the edge or the tie plate.  All of the mainline photos of rail joiners I looked at had corners on the rail joiners that are very sharply 90 degrees...and don't look rounded at all.

What I concluded after looking closely at prototype mainline track photos, is that I can see the rails perched up on top of the tie plates if I'm looking for that, at the same time, the taper of the tie plates becomes more obvious too.

Although I'm 100% with you that the tie plates should be thicker than scale-sized to be able to see them, I was thinking maybe 1.75%???  What percentage over-thickness are yours??

In any case...I love the tie proportions.  I really wasn't aware of how thin Atlas C55 ties are.

Also, the spacers between ties are what proportion to the tie height?  I would think that 50% would be sufficient, and allow properly sized ballast to cover them with air-space between the tops of the rocks to the bottom of the rail foot.

Just to show you why I'm pushing for heavily trafficked mainline tie strips in both C55 and C40, and lightly trafficked siding tie strips first...here's some handlaid PCB track I laid as an experiment using C55 as the mainline trackage and C40 as the siding trackage...with radically different tie spacing between the the two trackages with different purposes.

Photo (1) - Handlaid C55 heavily trafficked mainline trackage vs handlaid C40 lightly trafficked siding trackage with no ballasting:


I like the logic of using over-scale C55 for the heavily trafficked mainline heavy railed trackage and C40 for medium and lightly trafficked mainline & siding/spur/industrial trackage...so the difference in height can be easily seen in N-scale, as well as the difference of railhead width...then different tie spacings and different weathering add to the contrast between how different tracks of different usage levels can be typically seen...then lastly, different style and type of ballasting, with the lightly traveled siding/spur/industrial trackage sometimes just laid on the dirt, either almost buried, or completely exposed. The exposed trackage with your properly sized ties will look much more prototypical than anything that's presently being injection molded.

I know that a slight taper is one of the most difficult things for a 3D printer to produce properly, but I'm convinced that's what your tie-plates need if possible, and maybe a couple of thousandths less overall height too with sharp 90 degree edges.  Is this possible with your printer??  I'd also increase the height of the outside spikeheads about .001" too.

Of course, these suggestions are just my opinions and your tie-strips in their present form will produce C40 track that's better than anything ever produced before in N-scale.  I'd like the same in C55 for the rail-height contrast, even though I have a pretty big stash of Rail-Craft C55.

Pretty amazing!!

Cheerio!!
Bob Gilmore

[narrowminded]

Mark,
Thanks a million for the new, sharper photos!   When I first saw them, my immediate thought was that the tie plates are a bit too tall.  It's good to be able to see them, but they shouldn't look like the "chairs" on British rail.  BUT, I decided to look at my stash of prototype photos and see what rail joiners looked like during the transition era and a few years post-transition.  The bigger the rail gets, the more prominent the tie plate gets is the first impression from looking at photos of real tracks.  Also, the taper of the rail joiner is also pretty obvious from the edge of the rail's foot to the edge or the tie plate.  All of the mainline photos of rail joiners I looked at had corners on the rail joiners that are very sharply 90 degrees...and don't look rounded at all.

What I concluded after looking closely at prototype mainline track photos, is that I can see the rails perched up on top of the tie plates if I'm looking for that, at the same time, the taper of the tie plates becomes more obvious too.

Although I'm 100% with you that the tie plates should be thicker than scale-sized to be able to see them, I was thinking maybe 1.75%???  What percentage over-thickness are yours??

In any case...I love the tie proportions.  I really wasn't aware of how thin Atlas C55 ties are.

Also, the spacers between ties are what proportion to the tie height?  I would think that 50% would be sufficient, and allow properly sized ballast to cover them with air-space between the tops of the rocks to the bottom of the rail foot.

Just to show you why I'm pushing for heavily trafficked mainline tie strips in both C55 and C40, and lightly trafficked siding tie strips first...here's some handlaid PCB track I laid as an experiment using C55 as the mainline trackage and C40 as the siding trackage...with radically different tie spacing between the the two trackages with different purposes.

I like the logic of using over-scale C55 for the heavily trafficked mainline heavy railed trackage and C40 for medium and lightly trafficked mainline & siding/spur/industrial trackage...so the difference in height can be easily seen in N-scale, as well as the difference of railhead width...then different tie spacings and different weathering add to the contrast between how different tracks of different usage levels can be typically seen...then lastly, different style and type of ballasting, with the lightly traveled siding/spur/industrial trackage sometimes just laid on the dirt, either almost buried, or completely exposed. The exposed trackage with your properly sized ties will look much more prototypical than anything that's presently being injection molded.

I know that a slight taper is one of the most difficult things for a 3D printer to produce properly, but I'm convinced that's what your tie-plates need if possible, and maybe a couple of thousandths less overall height too with sharp 90 degree edges.  Is this possible with your printer??  I'd also increase the height of the outside spikeheads about .001" too.

Of course, these suggestions are just my opinions and your tie-strips in their present form will produce C40 track that's better than anything ever produced before in N-scale.  I'd like the same in C55 for the rail-height contrast, even though I have a pretty big stash of Rail-Craft C55.

Pretty amazing!!

Cheerio!!
Bob Gilmore

I'm seeing and concurring with just about everything you mentioned.   This was the second run after an initial test run to make sure that the basics were there and to start getting a view of how the details would render.  I especially think I overshot the tie plate height thing.  

Some of the more obvious can be corrected but there are some limitations, too.   Example, the empty spike holes are very small and just tend to fill in (as any tiny hole does (under .010"?).  Tough too is when we're looking for crisp 90 degree corners on parts of only a few thousandths size.  But there is also some fudging that can be done and at least improvements can be made even if we don't get microscopic perfection.   This is still a work in progress so keep coming with the critiques.  They are helpful.

Two things I was concerned about was overshooting the tie staggering effect on the several with the most extreme offsets and what you already mentioned on the tie plate and rivet heights.  I have a plan on what to try with the tie plates but the tie offsets are purely subjective.  Any comments on this particular feature will be welcome.  And if no consensus or desires would dictate, it would also be possible to make a couple of versions. 

[Simon D.]

I don't know if this is in any way helpful, but in the UK, as a comparison, this one man industry is producing Code 40 track and turnouts, including concrete.  https://www.britishfinescale.com/.  Obviously tie spacing and chairs etc. are very different.

There is a very long thread where he has consulted the N Gauge Forum here: https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=3280.0

Simon

[Bryn]

Sorry to come late to the thread with this, but you can buy plastic code 40 track bases from the UK. Might be with a bulk order an import some?

https://www.britishfinescale.com/product-p/finetrax-flexi-concrete.htm

[rodsup9000]

Sorry to come late to the thread with this, but you can buy plastic code 40 track bases from the UK.

 But why do that??? When we can print all we need with the Photon and get exactly what we want. It's a hell of lot cheaper.

[Bryn]

But why do that???

- Easier for longer runs and large layouts
- The plastic used is much more durable and not brittle, especially around the joints to the rail
- Pre-colored
- Soon to be released matching turnouts/switches

I'm all for 3D printing and the results look great! But it's always good to consider all options.

[peteski]

- Easier for longer runs and large layouts
- The plastic used is much more durable and not brittle, especially around the joints to the rail
- Pre-colored
- Soon to be released matching turnouts/switches

I'm all for 3D printing and the results look great! But it's always good to consider all options.

But the ones you and Simon mentioned are British, correct?
So the dimensions are different than U.S. standards? Seems that the benefit of these is that they are depicting the U.S. prototype.