Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0

[Point353]

Curious, they're all Electrofrog except for the Left, which is Unifrog (already gapped)...

Only the medium radius left and right turnouts are available in the Unifrog format, thus far.

[Dave V]

Only the medium radius left and right turnouts are available in the Unifrog format, thus far.

Yep.  I've used the Unifrogs on the RGS though (the #5 code 70 HOn3 turnouts rom Peco) and while I'm glad I took the time to power the frogs, I could probably have gotten away without doing so.  I will probably power the Unifrog on this left hand turnout too just in case. 

[Tom L]

One other reason I prefer Peco, apologies if this has been covered and I missed it, is the width of the railhead. My only Atlas code 55 track is this diamond. When I dropped it in place, I was a little surprised by how much wider it was compared to Peco. For some reason this bothers me more than Pecos tie spacing. Probably because  I model late Fifties Midwest secondary lines, so most of my track is kind of buried with minimal ballast vs high profile mainlines.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The diagonal route is a dummy, so it is a little misaligned.

I’d build a new layout if Peco came out with American track.

Tom L.
Wellington CO

[Dave V]

In later years, Colorado Midland tracks appear to have been mostly buried in cinder and dirt as well...and this includes the mainline:

[wcfn100]

The Victor depot wold look pretty good on that upper level.  Just sayin'. 

Jason

[Dave V]

The Victor depot wold look pretty good on that upper level.  Just sayin'. 

Jason

It would!  And I have Midland Terminal and CS&CCD decals now too...  <thinking>

[Rich_S]

One other reason I prefer Peco, apologies if this has been covered and I missed it, is the width of the railhead. My only Atlas code 55 track is this diamond. When I dropped it in place, I was a little surprised by how much wider it was compared to Peco.

Tom L.
Wellington CO

Hi Tom, Thanks for posting the photo, I never knew there was a difference in railhead sizes between the Peco and Atlas code 55 track. I would venture to say Peco can probably get away with a narrower railhead, because 0.025 of the rail height is buried in the ties, with only 0.055 exposed, making the rail stronger. Whereas the Atlas rail height is actually 0.055. I don't work for Atlas, but my guess is they went with a slightly larger railhead for added strength.

[wazzou]

...Whereas the Atlas rail height is actually 0.055. I don't work for Atlas, but my guess is they went with a slightly larger railhead for added strength.

Would you mind explaining what role the width of the railhead has to do with added strength?

[nkalanaga]

The same as the flanges on a girder.  The strength of the average beam or girder, such as a bridge, is proportional to the width times the square of the depth.  A wider flange strengthens the girder mostly be helping it resist sideways bending forces, so the flange stays upright, instead of twisting and collapsing.

Not really needed on model rails, but that's one of the reasons for the wide base on prototype rails.

The wider railhead on Atlas could also be code 55 was originally intended, and and the origonal specifications designed, for HOn3.  Prototype railheads are about the same width, regardless of rail height, so HO rail, even if it's the right height, is too wide for N scale.

Peco, on the other hand, designed their rail for N scale, so could make it narrower. 

[Chris333]

Now if Peco would just double the thickness of the ties so those could be thinner. 

[wazzou]

The same as the flanges on a girder.  The strength of the average beam or girder, such as a bridge, is proportional to the width times the square of the depth.  A wider flange strengthens the girder mostly be helping it resist sideways bending forces, so the flange stays upright, instead of twisting and collapsing.

Not really needed on model rails, but that's one of the reasons for the wide base on prototype rails.

The wider railhead on Atlas could also be code 55 was originally intended, and and the origonal specifications designed, for HOn3.  Prototype railheads are about the same width, regardless of rail height, so HO rail, even if it's the right height, is too wide for N scale.

Peco, on the other hand, designed their rail for N scale, so could make it narrower.

I get all the bridge girder stuff but the point was made about the width of the railhead of N Scale rail possibly providing for extra strength, not the base.
My question is, what strength does a wider N Scale railhead provide?

[Missaberoad]

As @nkalanaga said the extra width at the head on most code 55 rail is because it is HO scale rail.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Mountain goodness... 

[Point353]

I don't work for Atlas, but my guess is they went with a slightly larger railhead for added strength.

Maybe they wanted more space for dirt to accumulate.

[davefoxx]

Maybe they wanted more space for dirt to accumulate.

Do you have to clean your ballast often, if you use the Arnold Track with the Self-Cleaning Profile?   

DFF

[Point353]

Do you have to clean your ballast often, if you use the Arnold Track with the Self-Cleaning Profile?   

DFF

In a way, but not because the rail profile was allowing dirt to be dumped onto the ballast.
Rather, it was because I was using the MÖSSMER foam roadbed, which, over time, disintegrated into a gooey mess.
NOCH is still selling the MÖSSMER roadbed. I wonder if the formula for the foam has been improved at all during the past 50 years?