Concrete Tie strip for N Scale and Code 40 Rail

[robert3985]

Sorry about my absence...I took a fall while shoveling ice off of my driveway a few days ago and bruised myself up a bit.  The consequence is that I haven't been able to sit for any length of time, while being able to stand and walk just fine.  However, feeling better.

I'll be posting some close-up, completely in-focus shots of Mark's @narrowminded tie strips from the samples he's sent me tomorrow, then building a short length of roadbed to scaled-down prototype dimensions, painted, weathered and ballasted...probably posting that on Thursday or Friday....assuming my butt continues to heal at its present rate!

Although C55 rail isn't proportionally close to the heaviest rail used by any prototype I'm modeling, I still like the visual difference in height using both C55 and C40 together offers, delineating rail weight difference between sidings/spurs and mainline trackage.

Hopefully Mark, you can pretty easily and quickly produce some tie strips for heavy-traffic mainline track that will accept C55 rails??????  My order would be for 9' ties since I'm doing mainline U.P. trackage under Big Boys/Challengers/Turbines.    I've got about 30' of double-tracked mainline and an equal amount of siding/industrial spur trackage planned for my next big U.P. LDE...and although I've got old Rail-Craft C55 and C40 flex in my stash I can use, I'd prefer to use your superior product.

I also have a hunch there's good market for your tie-strips for use with C55 rails...maybe more than for C40 rail.

OUCH!...time to get outta this chair!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[narrowminded]

Sorry about my absence...I took a fall while shoveling ice off of my driveway a few days ago and bruised myself up a bit.  The consequence is that I haven't been able to sit for any length of time, while being able to stand and walk just fine.  However, feeling better.

I'll be posting some close-up, completely in-focus shots of Mark's @narrowminded tie strips from the samples he's sent me tomorrow, then building a short length of roadbed to scaled-down prototype dimensions, painted, weathered and ballasted...probably posting that on Thursday or Friday....assuming my butt continues to heal at its present rate!

Although C55 rail isn't proportionally close to the heaviest rail used by any prototype I'm modeling, I still like the visual difference in height using both C55 and C40 together offers, delineating rail weight difference between sidings/spurs and mainline trackage.

Hopefully Mark, you can pretty easily and quickly produce some tie strip for heavy-traffic mainline track that will accept C55 rails??????  My order would be for 9' ties since I'm doing mainline U.P. trackage under Big Boys/Challengers/Turbines.    I've got about 30' of double-tracked mainline and an equal amount of siding/industrial spur trackage planned for my next big U.P. LDE...and although I've got old Rail-Craft C55 and C40 flex in my stash I can use, I'd prefer to use your superior product.

I also have a hunch there's good market for your tie-strips for use with C55 rails...maybe more than for C40 rail.

OUCH!...time to get outta this chair!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Thanks for the update.  Sorry to hear you busted your...  

Yes, I can do code 55 strips and have already done the 55 to 40 transition strips for coming off a code 55 turnout or just transitioning from one to the other.  One related question that you may be able to answer, what would the total height from tie base (bottom) to top of code 55 rail be?  The total thickness of the turnout? 

Edit add:  I'm referring to the dimension of one of your hand laid pieces.

[robert3985]

Thanks for the update.  Sorry to hear you busted your...  

Yes, I can do code 55 strips and have already done the 55 to 40 transition strips for coming off a code 55 turnout or just transitioning from one to the other.  One related question that you may be able to answer, what would the total height from tie base (bottom) to top of code 55 rail be?  The total thickness of the turnout?

Mark, I'm thinking prototype practice, which would basically be C55 and C40 ties and tie plates being identical except for the width of the slot the rail goes into...the only differences in tie height or tie plate height should be the difference between mainline heavy traffic and siding medium/light traffic trackage...but I don't see any need to mess with the tie plate details except for possibly spikehead height and total tie plate width.  This would mean the total overall width of the tie plate would also be wider by the extra width of the C55 rail foot, the exposed portions on either side of the rail foot being identical in dimension to C40 tie-strips.  Also, if the edge of the C55 rail foot is higher than the edge of a C40 rail foot, then the spikeheads should be higher by that difference to be visible.

This means that the bottoms of the ties of C40 track would be higher than the bottoms of the ties of the C55 track it's mating up with by about .011", and there would be a short and very shallow grade from C40 to C55 track.  If I were laying both C55 mainline and a C40 siding, I'd shim the bottom of the C40 ties with about a 1.5" long thick paper or cardboard shim so that portion of the C40 railhead run even with the tops of the C55 rails (maybe your C55 to C40 transition piece takes care of this...I haven't looked closely at your design yet), using runny CA with Accelerator to fasten that 1.5" of C40 ties coming off the C55 ties to the shim...then let the track form a shallow grade of about 3 to 6 inches...filling the air-gap between the bottoms of the C40 ties to the cork roadbed with gap-filling CA, setting it off quickly with Accelerator. Prototype transitions between sidings, spurs with mainline trackage always have a short grade down to the non-mainline trackage, to make sure cars won't roll onto the mainline.  If there was a doubt about that, they install a derail, so the offending car will derail away from the mainline.  That said, I don't see a need for both C55 and C40 track to have their railheads exactly the same height after the short grade from C55 to C40 trackage since the prototype doesn't worry about it.

That make sense?

Edit: You're thinking turnouts!  This is good.  The thickness, from the bottom of my PCB turnout ties to the tops of the railhead is irrelevant because I lay the bench-made turnouts onto the sanded cork roadbed after I lay appropriate wooden or (lately) Styrene ties between the PCB ties.  The PCB ties are quite a bit thinner (meaning height) than scale-sized ties, so I use gap-filling CA to glue the turnouts to the cork roadbed gluing them only at the PCB ties, letting the turnout rest freely on the wooden/Styrene turnout ties, the gap-filling CA flowing under the air gap between the PCB ties and the cork roadbed before I apply Accelerator to cure the CA.

Painting the unballasted turnouts, then ballasting, essentially glues the foot of the rails to the wooden/Styrene turnout ties, but I don't worry about it since they're pretty well socked down to the cork roadbed anyway due to my generous use of PCB ties at stress points on my turnouts...meaning under the frog, under the point rail heels, in the middle of the closure rails, on either side of gaps, and on either side of the throwbar/point rail toes.

I install my C55 turnouts so the height mates up with Rail-Craft/Micro Engineering C55 flex...so, that would be a total railhead to bottom of tie dimension of .105" for Rail-Craft flex, and from .1065" to .1085" for Micro Engineering, making sure I didn't measure where they've embossed their brand name on the bottom of the ties.

Truthfully, I don't mic my turnouts either while building them on the bench or when I'm installing them on the sanded cork roadbed.  Prototype track has so many dips and little ski-jumps in it, that my trackwork is more even than most prototype rails scaled-down, and for my handlaid PCB C40 Park City Branchline trackage, I purposely make it crooked (side to side), but keep the tops "eyeball" even for reliability and good electrical pickup.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[ednadolski]

I also have a hunch there's good market for your tie-strips for use with C55 rails...maybe more than for C40 rail.

You mean something like this?  https://www.shop.cvmw.com/N-Scale-Mainline-CVT-3001.htm

Ed

[robert3985]

You mean something like this?  https://www.shop.cvmw.com/N-Scale-Mainline-CVT-3001.htm

Ed

Ed @ednadolski ...Nope.  I mean better than that.  After looking at tie dimensional data, and looking at several engineering diagrams of different tie plates, and spiking patterns, the CVT C55 wooden tie strips don't look that great to me. No spikeheads, improper tie plate details...I mean WAY improper from anything I see on the actual rails or in scale drawings.

Marks are way better looking.

What?  Me picky??? 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[narrowminded]

Something I just discovered.   Because it was a huge part of the focus, NMRA Standards S-3.1 (fine scale) and S-3.2 (standard scale) that specify details for turnouts including gage at the frog, flangeway clearances, and such were being used, basically no problem.  They are both very similar in the gage spec, within .001".   What I hadn't looked at recently was standards S-1.1 and S-1.2 which are general track standards.  Those are a LOT different, a much looser specification. 

What happens is this.  The turnout standards for the gage at the frog either S-3.1 or S-3.2, are within the tolerance for track gage but are much tighter than they are for just track.  For turnouts (Proto and Fine S-3.1 and Standard S-3.2) the gage dimensions are fairly tight for either and in fact, for fine scale, you're allowed .001" more at the maximum and .002" less at the minimum.  Standard turnout spec allows .359"/ .352" gage at the frog.  Proto allows .360"/ .354".  This is all as it pertains to turnouts.  The Flangeways are a little tighter for fine scale as they use thinner wheel flanges.  After digesting all of this as it applies to performance in either, it becomes obvious why these numbers and tolerances were chosen for smoothly performing track work.  The biggest thing is, because of all that's going on to get a wheelset smoothly through a turnout, especially at the frog, the tolerances have to be pretty tight.  Evidence the most likely trouble spot on layouts, the turnouts.

But then you get to basic track (S-1.1 and 1.2) and here's where the big diversion is allowed.  Standard S-1.1 which is proto or fine scale, the running track gage remains the same as the flangeways in S-3.1 (.360"/ .354").  But in S-1.2 which is standard scale spec, the gage allowance goes all of the way to .367"/ .353".  Fine scale has a total allowance of .006" whereas Standard scale has a total allowance of .014".   That's a LOT! 

Because of this focus I had on turnouts for my all of my specs, track too, I was referencing some Atlas numbers on pieces I had as being out of spec.  With a review of the S1 specs that's not true.  Sorry, Atlas.   I was seeing numbers of .264" or .260" as being wrong whereas they are totally within NMRA spec for standard track... as long as it's not at a switch frog.  

But this also points out that what I'm making, standard issue, meets NMRA Fine Scale specs for the track and very close for turnouts, the primary exception being flangeways.  For Fine Scale turnouts the guardrail position may need adjusted a little tighter due to narrower wheel flanges but absent a trial, I think there's a good chance that they could run them anyway, with no adjustment.  And if there was a desire, I should be able to furnish true Fine Scale turnouts.  If chosen, it would take a total commitment for all of your rolling stock though because standard wheels will just miss running reliably through a true fine scale turnout/ flangeway.

Bottom line, Fine Scale installations may be an option for the matter of requesting it.  The track already meets it.   The turnouts, technically not especially because of the flangeways, but some adjustments could be made to the design to make them true Fine Scale.  

[narrowminded]

Mark, I'm thinking prototype practice, which would basically be C55 and C40 ties and tie plates being identical except for the width of the slot the rail goes into...the only differences in tie height or tie plate height should be the difference between mainline heavy traffic and siding medium/light traffic trackage...but I don't see any need to mess with the tie plate details except for possibly spikehead height and total tie plate width.  This would mean the total overall width of the tie plate would also be wider by the extra width of the C55 rail foot, the exposed portions on either side of the rail foot being identical in dimension to C40 tie-strips.  Also, if the edge of the C55 rail foot is higher than the edge of a C40 rail foot, then the spikeheads should be higher by that difference to be visible.

This means that the bottoms of the ties of C40 track would be higher than the bottoms of the ties of the C55 track it's mating up with by about .011", and there would be a short and very shallow grade from C40 to C55 track.  If I were laying both C55 mainline and a C40 siding, I'd shim the bottom of the C40 ties with about a 1.5" long thick paper or cardboard shim so that portion of the C40 railhead run even with the tops of the C55 rails (maybe your C55 to C40 transition piece takes care of this...I haven't looked closely at your design yet), using runny CA with Accelerator to fasten that 1.5" of C40 ties coming off the C55 ties to the shim...then let the track form a shallow grade of about 3 to 6 inches...filling the air-gap between the bottoms of the C40 ties to the cork roadbed with gap-filling CA, setting it off quickly with Accelerator. Prototype transitions between sidings, spurs with mainline trackage always have a short grade down to the non-mainline trackage, to make sure cars won't roll onto the mainline.  If there was a doubt about that, they install a derail, so the offending car will derail away from the mainline.  That said, I don't see a need for both C55 and C40 track to have their railheads exactly the same height after the short grade from C55 to C40 trackage since the prototype doesn't worry about it.

That make sense?

I think so.   What my adapter covers is aligning the code 55 rails on the inside (gage) and the rail top, with the Code 40 rail.  To transition from an Atlas turnout and I suspect very close if not the same for ME or handlaid based on typical hand laid tie heights, the difference will be about .011", maybe .005" less for hand laid.  I am building this correction into the transition piece, much as you described.  That was why I was asking what one of your hand laid measured from the bottom of the wood ties to the top of the rail.  And while we're at it, do you (or anybody) have an ME turnout that you could measure?  Again, total height from bottom of ties to top of rail. 

The transition piece has branch tie spacing (may need others) and is a total of 3 1/8" long.  It has an extra spike (2) on the outside rail per the UP specified 4B spiking pattern for 40' of track past the turnout ties leading in and out of a main track turnout.  The first two ties under the code 55 rail and the next two after, under the code 40 rail (4 ties total), have a .011" riser built into the bottom of the tie which then transitions down at .001" per tie to the standard code 40 height.  This results in a total height transition length of 2" from the start of the transition piece, with the first two ties under the end of the turnout rails and the first two ties under the code 40 rail remaining at the elevated height.  The balance of the 2" transition zone (1 1/2") is where the actual height change takes place at .001" per tie, down to the normal code 40 height.  The rest of the length of 1 1/8" is at normal code 40 height but continues with the extra spike on the outside of the rail adding up to the nominal 40' (41.5') of rail with the extra spike.  This transition piece will get you close if not perfect for matching the rail heights but should always be checked and any bottom sanding or shimming made.  It can also be curved anywhere desired using the normal method of snipping tie bridges on the outside of the curve.

Edit: You're thinking turnouts!  This is good.

Painting the unballasted turnouts, then ballasting, essentially glues the foot of the rails to the wooden/Styrene turnout ties, but I don't worry about it since they're pretty well socked down to the cork roadbed anyway due to my generous use of PCB ties at stress points on my turnouts...meaning under the frog, under the point rail heels, in the middle of the closure rails, on either side of gaps, and on either side of the throwbar/point rail toes.

I install my C55 turnouts so the height mates up with Rail-Craft/Micro Engineering C55 flex...so, that would be a total railhead to bottom of tie dimension of .105" for Rail-Craft flex, and from .1065" to 1085" for Micro Engineering, making sure I didn't measure where they've embossed their brand name on the bottom of the ties.

The nominal height that the transition will mate to is .100" so for your turnouts on .040" ties should be very close and for the Railcraft or ME track a .005" +/- (one thickness of masking tape?) may be required.  But you should be close and the transition smooth!

[rodsup9000]

have an ME turnout that you could measure?  Again, total height from bottom of ties to top of rail. 

 Mark,

 .115" for the total thickness

Ties measure out at .060" thick

[narrowminded]

Thanks, @rodsup9000 .  That's helpful.

[narrowminded]

@ednadolski or anyone familiar, I have a question on the transition ties from wood tie turnouts to concrete ties.   Do they come away several ties in wood after the turnout or do they immediately change to concrete right at the turnout?  I'll again use an Atlas turnout as a reference for this question.  The reason I ask is it may be a little busy with concrete tie trimming required if I was to remove the last two turnout ties, those that are relieved for the rail joiner, instead of taking the wood ties away from the turnout by maybe three ties (five if you count the two that replace those removed from the turnout) and then carrying on from there in concrete.  I ask because I'm starting on a transition piece to mate Code 55 turnouts to Code 40 concrete track. 

I realize Ed, that you're more inclined to stick with Code 40 throughout, turnouts too, but this is for filling out some of the obvious options that are likely to surface if this is to be a generally suitable option for all users.

Edit add:  I found this:  https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@customers/@industrialdevelopment/@operationsspecs/@specifications/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_std_0220.pdf

Apparently you DO extend wood ties more than I thought.  It's here, 24 ties past and details.

[narrowminded]

Started on frog machining fixtures today.  I've got data for #4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and #12.  Next fixtures will be for the point rails.  That is forcing me to make up my mind on the throwbar design.   I'll do the #4 first, getting all of the functions, and then start on the details.  For anybody interested, any time in the next few weeks would be a good time to speak up on cosmetic details that would be nice to have. 

I may have a couple of tie spacings, 20" and 22", and still need to set the tie cross section.  I'm leaning to 9" x 7" with 9' width and/ or 8.5' width.  I think 9' will be more prototypical, especially for mainline ties but branch could maybe be 8"x 7" x 8.5'.  And folks are used to 8.5' (or less) with units like Atlas code 55.  For me, this is pretty exciting stuff.  

I'm trying to get a good throw bar design that still fits a reasonable cost.   I'm not at all excited about just soldering a PCB board to the points.  Too many failure stories go with them and for all of the details I've got covered that's one that just isn't right.  I'm not sure that I've actually seen anything that's really nice and the more I struggle with it myself the more I realize why.

Not much else to report yet.  Code 55 to Code 40 transition ties and branch and siding ties are really about ready to go but for the final packaging, pricing, and instructions.  Best to wait for those.  Concrete ties need the bridges lowered, wood transition ties from turnouts (code 55 and code 40 need them), and any final feedback from @ednadolski but I think he's generally pretty happy with the basic ties.

[ednadolski]

I've been able to procure some of the elusive Smith and Sons ballast, and put together this quick test piece:



- First thing I notice is how much darker this is compared to the AZRM, particularly when glued (I used alcohol with diluted ModPodge Matte).  I waited a couple of days to see if it would get any lighter, but it seems that this is it.   I do think it is a pretty good color for my prototype.

- This is the #60 screen size which to my eye looks very close to the correct scale size.  I further sifted it with a fine screen mesh (I wish I had the screen size, but I don't... it was something from the plumbing aisle)  to remove the smaller 'fines'.  That ended up separating out roughly 50% of the product.  Some ballasts start looking like a sort of aggregate glob of melted sugar at these smaller screen sizes, but this stuff retains its 'granular' look even without magnification.

- The tie color is basically flat white with just a small trace of flat black added.  I used hand-painted Model Master acrylic which I think creates a bit of a texture.  It's very subtle, but I like it over a smooth/plastic sort of look.  I might try adding a small trace amount of the MM Sand, just to bias it toward a color tone rather than keeping to a pure black & white.   Of course, it will all change anyways when weathering is applied.

(Edit - I note that the lighter color helps to disguise the stair-step aliasing, esp. in pictures.)

- The clips are hand-painted.  I need to get better at this.  The RR Tie Brown serves for this purpose, but for a 'new track' look the color needs some hint of red added.

- The webbing/tags between the ties are evident esp. when viewed more from the side.  These are very hard to hide even with the finer grade ballast while still avoiding interference with rail placement.  Glad to hear that @narrowminded is making them lower (about half the current height should do... and they can simultaneously be wider to preserve strength; a concave/arched cross-section seems ideal).   Really they only need to be on one side at all, the other side can completely remove them. I am working on a longer sample and I am going to clip them away entirely on one side - not difficult, but not really a necessary sort of task to have to do.

- The rail is the ME weathered.   I cleaned the underside of the base with fine sandpaper before gluing it down with CA.  I also cleaned the rail head with #800 sandpaper.

- I haven't tried superelevation yet, but I bet these will look really good with that

Cheers,
Ed

[narrowminded]

I like it @ednadolski !   You take the detailing to an ultimate level!

I will get you some new ties with the bridges lowered.  I'll work on that today.   Also, as far as super elevation, would there be any point in building that into the tie base?  That could be done and then offer a transition piece to go with it, smoothly transitioning from flat to the super elevation.  Would you have a dimension to raise it in mind?  I would guess about .015" across the tie span but...

One thing I'll suggest trying is this refillable paint pen. (And @robert3985 , this is the pen and colors I was talking about a few days ago.)  There are probably other brands but this is what I found, tried, and really liked.  Unlike Sharpies this has a 1mm hard tip.  I sanded the tip to a chisel point, then slightly blunted at the tip, and with the capillary action of the acrylic ink found that it flowed over the raised portions pretty controllably.  And the ink seems thin enough that it isn't prone to filling in fine details.  If the tip gets overloaded, blot it on a towel.  Excursions off your desired point seem to wipe off readily, although on a white background I don't know that it won't stain a little and may need touched up.  I've only used it on the wood  ties that were dark brown and wiping/ blotting errors wasn't a problem.  I also cleaned the tip with acetone to change colors and it cleaned out near perfectly.  I'm still new to this myself, seeking something to work for this project.  I think I'll find other uses for this pen.

https://www.michaels.com/daler-rowney-fw-mixed-media-small-1mm-paint-markers/10552974.html

And then there's the ink.  Specifically Acrylic Ink, not water based ink.  They make both and package them in the same style dropper bottles so give an extra look if buying off the shelf.  The acrylic is permanent and withstands alcohol, water, etc.  It takes a little time to dry but measured in minute or less, not much longer.  Just enough time to blot an error.   I used it straight from the bottle, not diluted. 

The colors I bought were Red Earth (rust), Burnt Umber, and Indian Yellow.  I have only tried it on Rail Tie Brown painted wood ties and suspect it tended to darken the appearance slightly so I used the Red Earth with some of Indian Yellow to lighten it just a little.  The ratio was around 4:1, red earth (4) to yellow (1).  The red earth color wasn't bad straight from the bottle but was harder to see against the rail tie brown.  A drop of yellow didn't fundamentally change the color but lightened it just a little, what was needed adjacent to or over the rail tie brown.  With a light gray base the Red Earth may seem a little bright and need muted, I don't know, but if needed I think that a drop of the Burnt Umber might accomplish that.  Or maybe just using the Burnt Umber straight from the bottle if you wanted a darker brown.  I think those pieces would at least get you started.  I also think that you'll find many more uses for these when detailing.

https://www.michaels.com/daler-rowney-fw-acrylic-artists-ink/10518940.html

[GaryHinshaw]

That looks fantastic @ednadolski !  It's almost enough to make me want to start over.   

[ednadolski]

That looks fantastic @ednadolski !  It's almost enough to make me want to start over.   

Thanks, but please don't do that!   I've "started over" way too many times, it's much better to have something completed!

Ed