Concrete Tie strip for N Scale and Code 40 Rail

[C855B]

Mentioned before, my particular goal is a C40 drop-in for the Atlas #7, with tie size and spacing to match ME C40 (wooden) flex, so I suppose this is counter to the original objective. I don't know quite where we are in the discussion of the turnout design for concrete vs. wood ties, but I'll point out that while concrete-tie turnouts exist, palletized turnouts with wood ties are very common within concrete trackage. But YMMV. My layout needs these for yards and branchlines, so no concrete there.

ME C40 ties are 0.064"W x 0.055"H x 0.675"L, on 0.140" spacing (0.076" between ties). Other dimensions within the pallet depend on whenever Andy's (Proto:87) switch parts arrive; my particular plan since I need 200 or so is to minimize fabrication of rail parts like frogs and points.

[wcfn100]

Mentioned before, my particular goal is a C40 drop-in for the Atlas #7, with tie size and spacing to match ME C40 (wooden) flex,

Why set such a low, crappy bar?  And turnouts don't have even spacing. 

Turnout drawings are available, but due to clearances, we can't follow prototype dimensions exactly.  For example, if you have a prototypical point rail length, your diversion angle has to be sharper for the wider-than-proto N scale clearances.  With everything else the same, you end up with a shorter frog-to-point distance. I think this is where the Atlas turnout have issues.  You can compensate with a broader radii etc...

The biggest failing in ALL commercial turnouts is the diverting rail.  For the distance of the point rails, the diverting rail is supposed to be straight at a matching angle to the point rails.  This is why points are picked, and this is how wheel backside shorts happens.  The diverting rail should have a BEND at where the point contacts it, remain straight to the end of the point rail, and THEN curve.

The best thing to do is take a proto drawing and redraw it with N scale clearances trying to use as close to possible proto dimensions.

Jason

[narrowminded]

I'm trying to get my head around this tie dimension decision.  Looking at the Atlas code 55 dimensions, they measure at 7.36" x 9.92" x 101.92" full size.  If we round them to the nearest half inch that's 7.5" x 10" x 102".  Spacing is 19.52" or rounded, 19.5".  That's pretty heavy duty track based on other research.  Robert's UP list has lengths of 8' or 9' even, no 1/2' increment.

Railroad Tie Association says standard tie dimensions are 7" x 9" x 102" (8.5').

I think I will start with 7" x 9" x 102" and set at 22" spacing.  With the code 40 rail this will be subtly smaller/ lighter than Atlas code 55 and introduce a .021" larger daylight space between ties affording an appropriate look of lighter duty track, visibly and prototypically.  Opinions invited.

Tie plates to be determined.  Again, opinions invited.

[robert3985]

Mentioned before, my particular goal is a C40 drop-in for the Atlas #7, with tie size and spacing to match ME C40 (wooden) flex, so I suppose this is counter to the original objective. I don't know quite where we are in the discussion of the turnout design for concrete vs. wood ties, but I'll point out that while concrete-tie turnouts exist, palletized turnouts with wood ties are very common within concrete trackage. But YMMV. My layout needs these for yards and branchlines, so no concrete there.

ME C40 ties are 0.064"W x 0.055"H x 0.675"L, on 0.140" spacing (0.076" between ties). Other dimensions within the pallet depend on whenever Andy's (Proto:87) switch parts arrive; my particular plan since I need 200 or so is to minimize fabrication of rail parts like frogs and points.

Like I've mentioned before, the Atlas C55 #7 is all out of proportion.  Since it's only a tiny bit longer than a properly proportioned ME C55 #6, I'm puzzled as to why you persist in wanting somebody to develop a set of turnout ties that are so unprototypical, making the entire turnout grossly out-of-proportion?  Surely your layout design software has ME track represented in it...mine does.  Since the Atlas C55 #7 is so short between the frog point and the closure rail toes, its effective diverging radius is about the equivalent of a #6.3 or #6.4...so, why not just use "real" tie spacing as the prototype?  That's what ME has done...the very best looking and operating N-scale turnouts ever injection molded.

Also, as I've mentioned before, Proto87 Store's etched frogs are extremely difficult to put together.  If you're going to do it, you'll be well-served to buy Andy's jigs and fixtures for doing the assembly, along with his solder and the applicator.  I've got professional soldering gear, including a 200W American Beauty soldering station, and it took me two to three times as long to solder up the etched frog than to make my own out of rail.  C40 frogs are quite a bit easier to fabricate than C55, but I'm not sure if Andy's etched C40 frog kits are easier to fabricate.

I also found that aligning the Proto87 Store's frogs was more difficult than making them in-place, since rail-built frogs self-align, and keep aligned after cutting the gaps with your jeweler's saw.

Proto87 Store's turnout parts that I highly recommend are his tri-planed closure points and his point rail heel blocks (hinges)...my only gripe being the $10 price per pair of tri-planed points.  Both items add to the speed & accuracy of turnout fabrication as well as looking much more prototypical than the usual file-away-the-inside-rail-foot method, and monolithic closure rail/switch point construction.

Photo (1) - Proto87Stores Tri-Planed Point Rails:


Photo (2) - Proto87Stores Heel Blocks:


Tie spacing within turnouts is not the same as what's out there on the mainline, (it varies within the confines of the turnout) so knowing what a particular brand's flextrack tie spacing is doesn't mean anything as far as a turnout's ties spacing is concerned.

Personally, if I'm gonna go to the trouble to hand-build my turnouts, even with a 3D tie-pattern to help me, I'd want my turnouts to be as close to the prototype as possible...not some odd proportion a manufacturer has decided to use to make using their sectional track easier...which I'll never use anyway.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

PS...I'm using Googlephotos again for these photos.  If they're not showing up, please let me know and I'll use TRW.

[robert3985]

I'm trying to get my head around this tie dimension decision.  Looking at the Atlas code 55 dimensions, they measure at 7.36" x 9.92" x 101.92" full size.  If we round them to the nearest half inch that's 7.5" x 10" x 102".  Spacing is 19.52" or rounded, 19.5".  That's pretty heavy duty track based on other research.  Robert's UP list has lengths of 8' or 9' even, no 1/2' increment.

Railroad Tie Association says standard tie dimensions are 7" x 9" x 102" (8.5').

I think I will start with 7" x 9" x 102" and set at 22" spacing.  With the code 40 rail this will be subtly smaller/ lighter than Atlas code 55 and introduce a .021" larger daylight space between ties affording an appropriate look of lighter duty track, visibly and prototypically.  Opinions invited.

Tie plates to be determined.  Again, opinions invited.

From my measurements way back when of both the Atlas C55 flex and the ME C55 flex, neither was correct for either heavily trafficked track, or medium trafficked track.  The issue was that one of them had a tie length that was correct for heavily trafficked mainline track, but the spacing was too far apart...just right for medium trafficked track, and the other had ties that were the correct length for medium trafficked track, but the ties were spaced too close together...just right for heavily-trafficked mainline track.

I mulled that problem around in my head for a while, and decided that the much smaller "spikeheads" that ME C55 had overruled tie length and spacing, and went with ME C55.

For myself, I don't notice that the tie lengths on ME C55 are a few inches too short for U.P. Heavily Trafficked Mainline track, but I do notice several things about it that also contribute to it being my choice for my mainline trackage.  Although Atlas Flex has squarer tie ends (which is good) their uniformity is too perfect.  Mainline trackage even for a Class 1 railroad, such as U.P. in the transition era, had ties that weren't laid perfectly, so the ends looked decidedly uneven when sighted along the track rather than from directly overhead.

Photo (1) - U.P. Heavily Trafficked Mainline Track just west of Hennefer:


Note the uneven spacing of the ties as well as the unevenness of the tie-ends, being either different lengths or not laid centered...a very prototypical U.P. feature.

Photo (2) - Rail-Craft C55 Flex duplicating the uneveness of prototype trackage:


Note the unevenness of the ties as the track goes off into the distance and also the not-perfect tie alignment/spacing. 

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't be using Atlas C55 flex as your main example to get information from.  There's more to prototypical looking trackage than mere tie proportions and spacing.  I'll be more than happy to send you a small sample of Rail-Craft C40 flex...which was the ultimate in prototypical-looking N-scale trackage.  Nothing comes close to it nowadays.  However, it was proportioned for Medium Trafficked Track, with lovely, tiny spikeheads that didn't need to be sanded down except for pizza cutters.

I would say that for Heavily Trafficked Mainline Trackage, use the 9' length and tie spacing, with at least scale 13" long tie plates with eight spike holes, and two spikes on either side of the rail...one "anchor spike" and one "gauge spike" on each side of the rail, with opposite side of the rail spiking pattern being just the opposite (staggered) from each other.  Even though most tie plate plans I've seen don't have a ridge on the inside, I'd make the plates maybe 1.75% thicker than a properly-scaled tieplate, and have a shallow basin for the C40 rail foot to fit precisely into to hold the rail securely in gauge.

Spikeheads could be made the scale oval area, but to be seen, they should be higher.  Prototypically only the anchor spikes were hammered down nearly flush with the tie plate...the gauge spikes were almost always protruding quite a bit above the edges of the rail foot, showing their shafts to daylight. 

Photo (3) - U.P. mainline on Wasatch Grade showing both spike pattern and how the spikes aren't driven in so their bases are flush with the tie plates:


In this close-up view, both anchor spikes and gauge spikes protrude fairly high from the tie-plates, which will make them more visible in your tie-strips and be prototypical too.

I agree that setting the tie-spacers lower will greatly aid in the tie-strips' prototypical appearance.  No reason to have them tie-high anyway, and it'll save on resin.

I'm pretty excited about this!  I would also be interested (once again) in C55 tie strips...Heavily Trafficked Mainline.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

Photo (1) - U.P. Heavily Trafficked Mainline Track just west of Hennefer:

Bob, I see all the photos in both of your posts except the one mentioned above.  I see that infamous Google gray "do not enter" sign. I am logged into Gmail (Google) in another tab in this browser.

[robert3985]

Bob, I see all the photos in both of your posts except the one mentioned above.  I see that infamous Google gray "do not enter" sign. I am logged into Gmail (Google) in another tab in this browser.

Re-did it.  Better?

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

Re-did it.  Better?

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

No.  Photo 1 still shows up as that symbol, but now Photo 3 also changed to the "do not enter" symbol.    Did you even touch the link to Photo 3?  Only Photo 2 is still visible.

[MK]

All photos show for me.  No "Do Not Enter" sign for any.

[Maletrain]

I can only see photo #2 in Chrome on Windows 10.  The other 2 just show the description text with no boxes at all below that text.

[MK]

Might be an intermittent thing?  Now I only see #2 whereas earlier in the morning I see all photos.

[narrowminded]

@robert3985 I really appreciate you taking time to involve yourself in this conversation.    I too am not seeing several of the photos but I think I get the gist of what you're talking about. 

On one front, you can relax in thinking that I'm putting too much weight on Atlas code 55 as a reference.   My main purpose in using them is the universal familiarity most have with that track and something that can be used as a "more than" or "less than" type of reference as this effort moves forward.  It's also a track brand that will often be mated with this code 40 track so a sense of the difference between them should be helpful in weighing that decision.

At this point the effort is to get the basics started.  That would be the tie size, plate size and type, and the spike detail and then printability of those features.  This will be for code 40 rail so I am only considering branch line and siding applications.  Code 55 track will be for another day. The biggest single question in my mind was getting the proper tie dimensions and then their appearance relative to the rest of the track. 

To that end and where my investigations have landed me, considering prototypical track as well as appearance when mated with hand laid and widely used standard code 55 track, is the planned tie size for both branch and siding track.  I'm coming up with 7" x 9" x 102" (8.5') for both with branch line spaced at 22" and siding at 24". 

The other difference would be in the tie plates and spiking.  I think the tie plates will be eight hole, possibly slightly different in length but not width, with six spikes for branch line and four spikes for sidings per the UP drawing provided.  Additional spikes can be arbitrarily added for the appearance of maintenance fixes but the general would be as described.

I agree about staggering ties arbitrarily as demonstrated in Robert's exquisite track work pictured as well as prototype photos but on the first test runs the focus will be on basic appearance and spike detail rendering so the tie uniformity will be unrealistically perfect.  It can be adjusted at the end.  I expect the tie plate and spiking to require some fudging to get an acceptable result.

So...   7" x 9" x 102" (8.5') with 22" spacing for basic tie size on branch line?   Then 24" spacing for siding?   BTW, after all of my searches with mediocre results, it occurred to me to check FastTracks' dimensions of their laser cut tie strips and these dimensions turn out to be the same as those that they use. 

[narrowminded]

BTW, code 40 rail scales out closest to 100#/ 130# rail.  The height of code 40 is slightly over in both cases.  Code 55 rail scales out closest to 155# rail, definitely heavy main line size.

It seems there is merit to laying the different sizes with their different visual appearance when striving for a prototype look.

[ednadolski]

BTW, code 40 rail scales out closest to 100#/ 130# rail.  The height of code 40 is slightly over in both cases.  Code 55 rail scales out closest to 155# rail, definitely heavy main line size.

The Proto:87 Stores website has a page that shows some of the prototype rail profiles and dimensions: http://www.proto87.com/Prototype_and_HO_rail_sizes.html

Here is a quick translation of a few rail heights to N scale:

132 lb. = 7.125" proto = 0.046" N scale
110 lb. = 6.25" proto = 0.039" N scale
100 lb. = 6" proto = .0375" N scale
 75 lb. = 4.75" proto = .0297" N scale

The page at http://www.icrr.net/rails.htm was all I could find for 155 lb. rail:

155 lb. = 8" proto = 0.050" N scale

It seems there is merit to laying the different sizes with their different visual appearance when striving for a prototype look.

You honestly won't get very much of a prototype look out of code 55 rail.  Height-wise, it's 10% oversized even for the 155lb. rail which was the heaviest ever used (only AFAIK on the PRR).  The heaviest modern rail nowadays is 140/142 lb, which scales to about 0.046" height, and code 55 is about 20% oversized height for that.

Code 55 rail is actually a model of 75 lb. rail scaled to HO.  So visually, the railhead width is even more oversized for N scale.  The 0.029" width scales to  4.7" proto equivalent, yet even the 155 lb. rail head proto width was 3".  That puts the Code 55 rail head width at 57% oversized for N-scale (for the largest prototype that ever existed).

But for N-scale, Codes 40 and 55 rail are the only game in town.  I think that despite the code 55 being significantly oversized, most N-scalers simply have accepted it as a matter of practicality (I don't want to get into the wheel flange discussion) and thus have simply become accustomed to looking at it (much as is the case with oversized wheels, couplers, handrails, grabirons, and a host of other parts).  You can mix codes 40 and 55 if you want a visual contrast, but I'd have to say that the only other visual improvement that code 55 offers is that at least it is not Code 80

I've never heard of anyone making their own custom, scale-sized rail, but since some 3D printers can print even metals nowadays, perhaps that's not much of a reach any more

Ed

[ednadolski]

(Aside:  Code 80 scales to 12.8" height, which is 60% oversized for the 155 lb. rail.)

Ed