Concrete Tie strip for N Scale and Code 40 Rail

[ednadolski]

However, if the model tie strip for code 55 rail could be made with the seat for the rail 0.006" lower than the tie upper surface level, then N scale model track made with code 55 rail could be made to have roughly the same appearance as prototype track made with 125-to-132 lb rail.

Seems that would look like the rail was sinking into each tie by about a scale inch.

Plus it creates a vertical gap between the rail base and the spikes, and you could no longer make the ballast level with the tie tops because it would keep the rail from fully seating into the guides.

I'm not really sure anyways that I see a benefit to making C55 rail lower, over than making the C40 rail sit higher.  (And then it brings back the cosmetic issues of the C55 railhead width, which is a stopper at least for me FWIW).

Ed

[ednadolski]

Here are some samples from tie bed I had already painted with Krylon Camo and assembled with rail painted with MM acrylic.

The tieplates/spikes look good, tho this color contrast makes the ties themselves look a little too dark/black to my eye (at least in the pics).   That said, there is a tradeoff to keep in mind WRT color choices, because if they get too close then the details will start to disappear under normal viewing.

Have you tried distressing the top surface of the ties to create an impression of wood grain?

Ed

[narrowminded]

That sounds pretty promising.  Not that I have anything against Pliobond, as I've rarely used it.  However when I have it's been rather stringy and messy to work, and I found it hard to make it go where I wanted.  I've heard that some folks thin it with MEK (I prefer to avoid the nastier chemical solvents) and others have been able to apply it with a fine syringe (not sure if that was for C40 rail tho). 

I've also heard that Pliobond can be heat cured by applying a soldering iron to the rail after setting it into  place on the ties.  IDK how well that would work with printed ties, as I suspect they would have a low tolerance for that level of heat.

Seems that the syringe applicator might work well for the G/flex on C40 rail. it's just one of those things I'd have to get around to trying out

I think between CA and Pliobond, strength of the joint won't be an issue.  I like the Pliobond not for its strength but for its desirable characteristics in use.  I am still working on suggested application methods but have already thinned it enough to not string and then brushed on with a very fine brush (that's how my first effort, the Nn3 test track was done).  Since then, I have applied with a small plastic tipped syringe (.020" I.D.?) and that seems fine except the syringe I had, for as fine as it was, was still a little too course and the nozzle, being plastic, was a little too bulky for my liking.  I just ordered some new smaller volume syringes with a much smaller piston as well as a very fine SS blunt tipped needle.  The smaller piston should afford better control and the needle with a much smaller OD should help with the bead that's layed down.  I will be experimenting with that as well as some ideas I have for a needle guide that will help with easy control of the needle tip if applying to rail lengths but it also may be controllable enough to just apply individually between the tie guides.  And thinning is always an option.  This still needs some experimenting to come up with an easy to execute, recommended plan for application.  The ways I've done it this far have all worked but I'm trying to make it easier for mere mortals without experience to have a good chance of success.

And yes, a soldering iron can be used to adjust the joint and it's also the way hand laid track folks have fixed popped joints, warming with a soldering iron rubbed on the top of the rail in the vicinity of the area that needs to be reseated.  I had one joint on my test track that I hadn't fully seated when I was assembling it so it sat just a hair high with glue filling the gap at the base, not noticed for a day or two.  A regular electronics solder iron rubbed over the joint for a few inches and for a half minute or so, settled the rail right in.  The rail, as small as it is, is a pretty big heat sink for a typical solder iron (25-35W?) so it's not easy to overheat the assembly if you just press on it and keep slowly sliding it back and forth over the vicinity of the area being reworked.   And that joint as well as the whole test track is still exactly in place even after exposing it to as low as 24 degrees F to test the expansion/ contraction survivability.  It showed zero effects.

And another point about a solder iron in the vicinity of the rail, I have soldered a feeder to an installed rail from the top side in the conventional way of attaching feeders to flex track, catching just the outside lip of the rail foot and dropping it down between the outer tie stubs.  My normal approach for this is, when fitting the rail, selecting a spot right over a tie bridge piece where I want to drop the feeder, marking the rail, and then soldering the feeder to the rail bottom center.   I then snip and remove that piece of tie bridge, drill through the base, and feed the wire through while gluing down the rail.  That has the feeder centered directly under the rail so very well hidden.  The one I dropped from the top was one I forgot to do while I was preoccupied with first time installing.   The point is, it worked with no visible effect to the ties and no extra precautions while soldering.  Some might even prefer doing it this way.

There will be more sorting of these things and I really want to get this sorted and demonstrated in videos to assure folks have a good shot at success when working with it.  None of it is that hard but there will be some important details.  Good info going in should make successful installation easy.

[narrowminded]

The tieplates/spikes look good, tho this color contrast makes the ties themselves look a little too dark/black to my eye (at least in the pics).   That said, there is a tradeoff to keep in mind WRT color choices, because if they get too close then the details will start to disappear under normal viewing.

Have you tried distressing the top surface of the ties to create an impression of wood grain?

Ed

Understood on the color differential.  Do you have a tie and rail paint color that you like?  I have used the standard Testors(?) rail brown and tie brown this far and find it OK but if there's something that you find that you like I'd be inclined to try it.  Afterall...   I do think that some dry brushing and weathering could take care of the looks for a host of dark base colors, just maybe not that dark.  Krylon Camo dark brown is what that is and I'd say it's very close to black in person.

As far as wood grain, I haven't tried anything yet but suspect that a piece of fine tooth hacksaw blade could get that done.  The stuff will scar pretty easily.  Just watch the tie plates.

[narrowminded]

Seems that would look like the rail was sinking into each tie by about a scale inch.

Plus it creates a vertical gap between the rail base and the spikes, and you could no longer make the ballast level with the tie tops because it would keep the rail from fully seating into the guides.

I'm not really sure anyways that I see a benefit to making C55 rail lower, over than making the C40 rail sit higher.  (And then it brings back the cosmetic issues of the C55 railhead width, which is a stopper at least for me FWIW).

Ed

And @Maletrain , that's my concern.  I'm inclined to agree with Ed's thoughts on this.  The idea sounds like it could have merit but there's so much rail still exposed between ties, the tie plate won't render nearly as well especially in relation to the rail, and then the rail head on code 55 is so much larger than code 40  (027" vs: .018"). 

[Maletrain]

And @Maletrain , that's my concern.  I'm inclined to agree with Ed's thoughts on this.  The idea sounds like it could have merit but there's so much rail still exposed between ties, the tie plate won't render nearly as well especially in relation to the rail, and then the rail head on code 55 is so much larger than code 40  (027" vs: .018").

Understood about the rail head.  The real 150 lb rail has a 3" rail head width that scales to 0.01875 in N scale, while the real rail heads for 110-to-132 lb rail run between 2-1/2" to 3" (depending on design more than weight), so the code 40 rail head looks pretty good for any track we intend to model.

Perhaps the way to make the rail height difference between mainline and branch lines noticeable would be to use code 40 for both, but make the tie strip for the mainlines actually include something like scale 3/4" thick tie plates under the rail bases.  So, in effect, the mainline rails sit about 0.004"-to-0.005" higher off the ties than the branch line rails.  0.004" in N scale translates to about 5/8" and 0.005" translates to about 13/16" on the prototype, so it is pretty close to the difference between rail heights in the 110 lb and 132 lb categories. 

[ednadolski]

make the tie strip for the mainlines actually include something like scale 3/4" thick tie plates under the rail bases.

I think this has merit for the concrete ties as well.  In fact, the prototype does exactly that:



Note how the plate doesn't go quite the full top width of the tie... it's even a bit shy of the chamfered top corners.

Ed

[narrowminded]

Hahaha! @narrowminded
BUT, with my sharp, Optivisored eyes critically looking at the ties strips that Mark has sent me for evaluation, and comparing them to the best flextrack ever made (Rail-Craft C40) and present-day Micro Engineering C40 flex, I don't have to be a genius to see that what Mark has developed looks exponentially better than any injection molded N-scale track EVER PRODUCED!

Thanks for that vote of confidence, Robert. The goal was to produce very functional and otherwise unavailable products and then make them look good too.  I'm tearing up over here.  

Everybody should also know that I am not "pushing" Mark to do Union Pacific trackage. I have simply supplied him with official drawings of prototype Union Pacific track standards, and he has made his own choices as to what to produce.

This is true.  That's where suggestions made here, that 8.5' mainline ties are a very common length, proved useful and was the vote of confidence that the cursory mention in my own research was legitimate.  Thanks @Missaberoad

When I started posting after already working and testing the functional aspects of this effort, including making nicely functioning Nn3 track, Robert jumped right in and offered some specific information that I didn't have.   His advice also came with decades of experience chasing the same goals I was chasing and from his extensive experience was very familiar with the problems this effort presented.  I knew details would matter, had done some basic research of these details, I just didn't have a good handle on some of the specifics.  Plus the research I was doing burned a LOT of time discovering a lot of well intentioned advice but from folks with little more knowledge of the specifics than myself.  Robert's advice was backed up with a lot of support documentation which was very refreshing for me.  Yes, it's largely UP specific but it's also designed to serve the same set of requirements as any track, so in general, won't be far off and has a better chance of being realistic than my best, minimally experienced, guess.   Thanks, Robert.

I think the tie plates are common enough by style and the spiking patterns follow a nice logic, are extremely tiny so just their presence somewhere near perceptibly correct should be good as a common offering with spiking details as noted for each (at least this far, pending some new info I don't have), and they ring true with my foggy memory of track I've seen.   The 8.5'/ 9' tie lengths with their 6" difference in length (.0375" scale) is a detail that has not been addressed in any prior offerings that I've seen but is also just visible enough to justify a separate offering for the level of detail being pursued in this effort.  In a highly detailed scene this subtle difference will add that extra touch that discerning modellers might recognize for what it is. 

Later today, I'll be showing Mark's wooden tie strips to several N-scale model railroad friends of mine at a little impromptu op session in Salt Lake City. 

And dare I ask, how did that go?

[ednadolski]

I think between CA and Pliobond, strength of the joint won't be an issue.  I like the Pliobond not for its strength but for its desirable characteristics in use.  I am still working on suggested application methods but have already thinned it enough to not string and then brushed on with a very fine brush (that's how my first effort, the Nn3 test track was done).  Since then, I have applied with a small plastic tipped syringe (.020" I.D.?) and that seems fine except the syringe I had, for as fine as it was, was still a little too course and the nozzle, being plastic, was a little too bulky for my liking.  I just ordered some new smaller volume syringes with a much smaller piston as well as a very fine SS blunt tipped needle.  The smaller piston should afford better control and the needle with a much smaller OD should help with the bead that's layed down.  I will be experimenting with that as well as some ideas I have for a needle guide that will help with easy control of the needle tip if applying to rail lengths but it also may be controllable enough to just apply individually between the tie guides.  And thinning is always an option.  This still needs some experimenting to come up with an easy to execute, recommended plan for application.  The ways I've done it this far have all worked but I'm trying to make it easier for mere mortals without experience to have a good chance of success.

Sounds good.  Do you apply adhesive to a full 3' length of rail? Seems that would need a few things:

 - A jig to hold the rail (or several rails) bottom-side up
 - A way to grip and handle the rail after applying adhesive to the bottom
 - Something to hold the rail in place while the adhesive cures.

Any ideas?  For the last one at least, my thought is some kind of small (steel or brass for the weight) cylinder or block with grooves in it to hold the rail down and in gauge.  Place one every couple of inches or so....

Ed

[ednadolski]

Do you have a tie and rail paint color that you like?

Actually I've always most liked the color of the ME weathered rail, but I've never been able to replicate the look with any kind of solid-color paint.  Track weathers just like everything else, so capturing the desired look takes trial and error, and of course, time. 

It would be nice to use the pre-weathered rail w/the concrete ties, tho I am concerned about how will an adhesive will bond to it.  It would be kind of a drag to have to clean the weathering off the underside of the base on every inch of rail, tho a little bit of that would be needed anyways for feeder wires.

Tie color really varies quite a bit.  As a solid base color, I recall using the SP Lark Dark Gray (the old PollyScale), but I like something with a hint of dark brown too.  I can't think offhand of anything that comes in a rattle can, but there are so many colors nowadays it should be possible to find something (and then watch it get discontinued, lol).

As far as wood grain, I haven't tried anything yet but suspect that a piece of fine tooth hacksaw blade could get that done.  The stuff will scar pretty easily.  Just watch the tie plates.

A few passes of a razor-saw blade and a bit of wire brushing would probably suffice, depending on the desired effect.   After a base coat, then a dark wash plus some dry-brushing to highlight the grain.   You and @robert3985 are almost making me want to switch to a prototype/era with wood ties

Ed

[narrowminded]

Understood about the rail head.  The real 150 lb rail has a 3" rail head width that scales to 0.01875 in N scale, while the real rail heads for 110-to-132 lb rail run between 2-1/2" to 3" (depending on design more than weight), so the code 40 rail head looks pretty good for any track we intend to model.

Perhaps the way to make the rail height difference between mainline and branch lines noticeable would be to use code 40 for both, but make the tie strip for the mainlines actually include something like scale 3/4" thick tie plates under the rail bases.  So, in effect, the mainline rails sit about 0.004"-to-0.005" higher off the ties than the branch line rails.  0.004" in N scale translates to about 5/8" and 0.005" translates to about 13/16" on the prototype, so it is pretty close to the difference between rail heights in the 110 lb and 132 lb categories.

That would also be doable BUT... the dimension per @robert3985 's furnished drawings of tie plates are 11/16" for those suitable for 130# rail and 7/16" for 90# rail.  That translates to .004" for the heavier rail and <.003" for the lighter rail.  This is an area that has already had a few edits from the initial trial piece, striving to get the tie plates looking correct.  It was lowered .003" from the first effort which was a little too clubby looking, while fudging the angled rise to keep the function as a guide robustly intact and easy to use.  In true scale they would be virtually invisible so as made they are already slightly oversized (at .005") but visibly decent, while still being high enough to function well as a rail guide.  These edits were in the .003" max shift range with the plate lowered and the spikes raised. 

Sooo, to add height at the rail foot would require raising the tie plate that equal amount and that starts to get the most prominent feature, the tie plate, going back to the already discarded dimensions due to the effect on the visible appearance.  The outside edge will be too high or if raised only against the rail, increasing the angle to correct for the higher rail foot, the already slightly over sized angle will start to look more like a European perch than a tie plate.  There is a very delicate balance going on here between being technically correct and looking visibly correct.   

Bottom line, my inclination is not to mess with that dimension as I feel it will make the prominent feature, the tie plate, look worse to make the less prominent feature, to the point of being obscure, a little more technically prototypical.  Through the course of several edits in exactly this area, I've already seen what additional height and additional taper on the visible tie plate looks like and for just a few thousandths change in any of those dimensions the result is pretty dramatic, most evident in photographs (a couple of thousandths becomes a near 50% change).  

Obviously, this is just my opinion and if folks really thought that raising the foot in the guide would add something it's only a few simple edits to do it but based on what's just been outlined I'm not inclined to do it.  I hope that's taken in the spirit it's offered and not taken as a slight to a very legitimate thought/ suggestion.  It is helpful to hear these things even if they are not ultimately adopted.  They help us to make something that's the best it can be.  "Better modeling through peer pressure!"

And @ednadolski , all that was just outlined is not the same issue with the concrete ties as those tie plates are prototypically much larger and wouldn't tend to cause the tie plate height problems I just outlined with the wooden ties... I think.   If there was benefit, I think it could be done, but there is one issue that might be worth considering before to proceed, the height change to the tie bed when transitioning from wooden ties (turnouts? sidings?) to concrete ties.  By design the concrete ties are larger and already set the rail foot about .008" higher than wooden ties.  That will already require shimming the wood ties to mate which isn't really a problem but adding another .003" to .005" resulting in .012"+/- might start to make that transition harsher than can readily be accommodated in a reasonable space, especially on short sidings.  I'm not sure if that's enough of a problem to care about but should be weighed.  Would raising that pocket really improve the concrete track appearance?  That answer would dictate the decision.  I'll seriously consider it based on folks' opinion.  So what say the masses?

Also, it seems that there might be a use for transition ties from concrete to wood, especially code 55 to 40 as was made for ease of alignment of the wood tie transition and for all of the same reasons.  Unless there's absolutely no need foreseen I'll put that on the list of drawings to make up.

[narrowminded]

And I think I've got a slick way to mask the rail guide pockets for pre-painting the tie bed with acrylic paint through the airbrush before to install the rails.  I've got a few little dumb pieces to make and then the rest will be up to the user to knock together from bits of scraps about the shop and home.  Low cost and easy. 

I already sorta' tried it with a  rigged up bit of tape and manual manipulation and it looks like it will work.

[Maletrain]

...  I hope that's taken in the spirit it's offered and not taken as a slight to a very legitimate thought/ suggestion.  It is helpful to hear these things even if they are not ultimately adopted.  They help us to make something that's the best it can be.  "Better modeling through peer pressure!"
...

No "slight" taken.  The whole process is really an exercise in making it look good, given what we have to work with.  So, I think we all understand that a choice between potential compromises must be made, and some compromises will end-up being more conspicuous than others - and maybe not in a foreseeable way.  I am just trying to visualize what you are trying to actually make.  You are the one who can see how changes look when you try something.  So, you are in the best position to make the choices about which compromises make the best appearance for the finished product. 

After all, we are kicking around changes of only a few thousandths of an inch, which nobody would notice under normal circumstances.  But, when we put the Optivisor on our foreheads or the macro lens on our cameras, we can see that just about every model has compromises.  I think the goal is to make the overall scene avoid having obvious compromises when viewed as a model scene, rather than individual components.  I think you are doing a really great job of developing this new product line, including how you seriously consider suggestions from all of us.

[Missaberoad]

In the interest of moving along with the project and satisfying the broadest needs, something that is pretty highly detailed and offers enough variation to enable a modeler to nicely represent their chosen locale, are there any other suggestions you might have from your experience? 

I think that the 9' mainline ties, especially when positioned next to 8.5" ties and being very road specific, will justify two offerings for mainline.  9' UP spec and 8.5' "standard" spec.  Then 9"x 7" mainline and 8"x 7" branch and siding ties.  Is the 8' branch and siding tie length important to make available? It seems like it might be.

Ive been doing some research on my chosen prototypes and it seems CP, Soo Line and Milwaukee Road all commonly used 8 foot 7x8 inch ties... I'm still trying to find drawings that show tie spacing and other details. It's amazing how much there is to learn about the subject and how little I actually knew...

I also noticed looking at turnout drawings that the spacing varied throughout the turnout, some parts needed more support then others it seems... 

[ednadolski]

I'm not sure if that's enough of a problem to care about but should be weighed.  Would raising that pocket really improve the concrete track appearance?

It would only be noticeable in close-up pics from certain angles, and even then it would be quite subtle.  The real elephant in the room is the C55 railhead width, which is apparent from many angles and considerable distance, and hits like a wet fish in closeup pics. (Yes, I am harping on about that, just a tiny little bit .)

Ed