0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Actually, Code 40 is nearly right on for A.R.E.A. 131 lb rail, which is what UP re-railed everywhere Big Boys might travel in the Summer of 1941.Photo (1) - A.R.E.A. 131 lb. rail measurements, 1/160th conversions for Railhead Width, Rail Height & Railfoot Width, and ME Code 40 measurements:If I round off the actual 1/160th width of the railhead (.01875") to .019"...then the railhead width on ME Code 40 is exactly what it should be for A.R.E.A. 131 lb. rail. I'm not going to quibble about Code 40 being .00025" too wide.Actual ME Code 40 overall rail height is too short by .0016"...I'm not going to lose any sleep over .0016".Actual ME Code 40 railfoot width is exactly .001" too wide...that's a scale .16" inch in prototype inches... which isn't going to give me any heartburn whatsoever.Soooo...ME Code 40 rail looking "massive" at an ant's eye view is only in the viewer's perception since it's easily within .001" in railhead & railfoot widths and is actually too short by a whopping .256" prototype inches...that's basically 1/4" of an inch too short.I noticed that the diagrams I found of A.R.E.A 131 lb. rail shows the railhead not being as rounded as other weights. This means even the squared-off railhead on ME Code 40 is pretty close to prototype looking.However, your ME Code 40 may vary as far as dimensions are concerned. I measured a stick of old, original-run Rail Craft Code 40, and the rail height is only .039" as opposed to newer Rail Craft Code 40 flex. Sorry...I couldn't find any ME code 40 flex in my stash. Photo (2) - Hand-laid PCB Code 40 on the Park City Branch:Just for information's sake, hand-laid Code 40 PCB track will run the biggest pizza-cutters without interference.As @ednadolski has written previously, on a short section of one of my center sidings laid with ME Code 40 flex, my old Kato F3's (my test engines) wouldn't run on it at all, so I sanded down the inside spikeheads with a small sanding block...taking care not to sand too much. I ran masking tape down the center so as not to scar up the ties. Didn't take long, now my F3's run fine on it. I cleaned up with a fairly soft brass welding brush to get the "fuzz" off of the spike heads. Since I have a big stash of Rail Craft Code 40 with its much smaller and shorter spikeheads, I am going to use that in my next 30' of layout sections for the industrial trackage and center siding.Photo (3) - ME Code 40 Center Siding with sanded-down inner spike heads:Also, there is nothing fragile about point rail toes on Code 40 turnouts. I've made dozens of them, and they actually hold up better than my Code 55 turnouts do because the rails are much more flexible, and don't stress the PCB throwbars nearly as much. One great point about Code 40 turnouts is that they go together faster because there is less metal to remove...I mean noticeably faster.Just for giggles, here's a couple of photos illustrating that Code 40 track doesn't look massive at all when compared directly with prototype photos taken from basically the same angle and distance.Photo (4) - Key FEF-3 on Code 40 Park City Branch trackage:Photo (5) - UP FEF-2 on 131 lb. Mainline Trackage:The conclusion is that ME Code 40 rails, even though they are HO scale, just happen to be the right size for N-scale 131 lb A.R.E.A. rail.Cheerio!Bob Gilmore
That photo also clearly demonstrates what someone mentioned earlier about using close to scale size rail: It brings out the fact that the scale the N scale wheels are quite a it out of scale. The tread width is much too wide, which is very apparent when the wheels is sitting on C40 track. The oversize flange is also quite apparent, but to me not as in-your-face as the tread width.When an N scale model is on C55 or taller rail (which also has wider railhead), those oversize features of the wheels are not as apparent.
Now, if Mark would supply me with his latest iteration of excellent tie strips in BOTH Code 40 and Code 55....I'd be a much happier rail nerd!Cheerio!Bob Gilmore
Are you ready to lay some track, @robert3985 ? Let me know where you are in the scheme of things. I have a couple of new printers, one with measurably larger capacity, and some more very useful experience that will make track go well. If I was to focus on just that I could have finished product in a matter of weeks, not months. And I could go ahead and make at least that product available for sale. Turnouts won't be ready for a little while yet as tooling isn't done. Let me know about track and any urgency. I have been quite busy with some life things but also with machine and tool building with my ambitious product plans always in sight. That's why I haven't been posting much about any of it as it gets to sounding like pipe dreams. And there have been times that I have entertained that thought about it myself. What became apparent when trying to progress with my own basic machine tools and product designs but also depending on machine access at a proper shop, is that that was not going to work as anticipated. So I have been very busy building my own machines, still able to operate in a very small space but with real capability. I have completed a small part injection molding machine (successfully tested but refinement tweaks expected once in use), currently working on the biggest time burner, a CNC mill for metal parts (including molds for the injection molder) and a second lighter duty one (a kit with modifications) that can be used for laser cutting and other light duty things like circuit boards. And there's all the peripheral tools and equipment like air and piping for cutter tool cooling, vises, fixtures, and clamping schemes, a fourth axis designed with features for gear production, and etc. This is ambitious stuff for a one man show to complete but if I ever get it done the ability to produce the things I have been developing will be pretty strong. I probably should have taken this approach several years ago but... here we are. Wish me luck! And I won't be posting much about it (boring people) until there's something to show.
Robert,Very good info and excellent examples! I was wondering if you had any similar "specs" for ME Code 55 rail? In addition, any experience with Fast Tracks Code 40 Jigs? Curious to know if ME Code 55 rail will "fit/work" in a Code 40 jig.Thanks in advance!
What I wonder about is how they're articulated for laying curves...and since bending rails will be a new experience for me when laying track on my layout, I'm a bit anxious about how it can be done since I've got it down as far as doing Rail Craft and I'm an old fart and changing my ways is getting more difficult every day!
I think with your product, it'll be the best track ever seen in N-scale...really!
Bending and fitting rail will likely prove to be the least of your concerns, especially with the rail bending tool I made. I still only made the prototype that was seen in the video but I have already purchased the roller bearings and the hard washers for the surface below the rail that the rail slides on (instead of the aluminum ones on the prototype) so all I have to do to complete that product is review the drawing and adjust the details for things like the hardened washers. I should finish that up and send you one to play with. You can bend a piece of rail, straighten it, bend it again to a different radius, all with that tool, and do it 'til your heart's content. Should I get on it? Well thanks for that vote of confidence. I'm especially anxious to get the whole package with detailed turnouts including planed closing rails with no notches. And that's your fault. "Better modelling through peer pressure" or some such.
Since my post was about how to make N-scale track look better...not how to make N-scale engines and cars look better, I chose a photo of a bone-stock brass Key FEF-3 that was shot nearly in the same perspective as the prototype photo of the FEF-2...thinking that it was clearly evident that the rails are virtually identically sized in relation to the locomotives sitting on top of them.
Not much can be done to replicate a scale flange size in N-scale, which are 1" deep...that's a flange depth of only .00625", which I believe would probably not work very well, although I'm also sure that somebody, somewhere has done it...maybe in Britain somewhere since they are probably even more fanatical about such things than the average rivet-counter here in the States.
Tire width? I think slimmer wheels would probably work pretty well on carefully laid trackage as FVM narrow low-pro wheelsets amply showed those of us who used them and lament their loss.
Now, if Mark would supply me with his latest iteration of excellent tie strips in BOTH Code 40 and Code 55....I'd be a much happier rail nerd!
I don't think I've ever seen an actual Proto:160 wheel (other than maybe as a drawing ). The 2mm Society comes close, I think, but I'm not really sure how close.Ed
The biggest difference I've noticed between American models and 2mm models is how sharp the flange is on 2mm wheels. Even the best FVM wheels have a relatively large radius between the tread and the flange and a large radius at the end of the flange. The 2mm wheels are much sharper in both of those places. I think FVM wheels actually look better as a result of this, even when the basic dimensions are pretty similar. I'll try to get some pictures that show what I mean.
Author
Topic: Weekend Update 3/27/22 (Read 9033 times)
