Weekend Update 3/27/22

[bbussey]

Really good technique and composition (not to mention the modeling, too). 

But using that particular vantage point really makes those rails look massive.  I would like to see a shot like that with code 40 track.  I am thinking about narrowminded's 3D project to make printed scale ties with tie plates and spike heads, here.  That would make a shot like this awesome.

Even Code 40 looks massive when you're at an ant's-eye view.  One could build a diorama strictly for photography with scale-sized rail.  But I wouldn't want to have to maintain an operating layout with it.  From 10 scale stories above the rail, it's not nearly as obvious.

[Jim Starbuck]

I finally finished the SDL39.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Maletrain]

Even Code 40 looks massive when you're at an ant's-eye view.  One could build a diorama strictly for photography with scale-sized rail.  But I wouldn't want to have to maintain an operating layout with it.  From 10 scale stories above the rail, it's not nearly as obvious.

The available products with code 40 rail right now do make it difficult to build and use with wheel flanges in common use, today. But, if the "Peco approach" was used to make flex track that has a false rail foot at tie plate level and a real foot buried in the ties, I don't see why using code 40 with currently available wheels would be much of a problem.  With actual scale spike heads, there would be plenty of clearance for flanges of usual depths.  And the track would be very robust for handling.  Only the turnout points would be more flimsy than current products.

Making something like that in massive quantities with the right tools for the job is not that hard.  But, making code 40 track on an ad hoc basis for one layout is currently the pain you speak of.  I want to do it for a diorama of a station scene, if I can get what I need.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Spent the weekend working on my first Free-moN module. Got to love static grass grout and stone.



Still need to ballast, but that's last.

Show me more!!!

[ednadolski]

The available products with code 40 rail right now do make it difficult to build and use with wheel flanges in common use, today.

That seems like a reference to the 'pizza cutter' flanges on older equipment, but I've found that the NMRA compliant wheels on more recent items runs fine on the code 40 flex from ME.  Larger flanged wheels can be reduced or replaced, or you can resort to @robert3985's trick of running the edge of a sanding block across the spike tops on the gauge side of the rail to reduce the spike height.

Some folks build their C40 track on PCB ties, so there are no spike head issues to speak of in those cases.

Another point, with Code 40 today you have to build your own turnouts anyway - so it is only an option for folks willing to take on a "some assembly required" effort.

With actual scale spike heads, there would be plenty of clearance for flanges of usual depths.

Actual scale spike heads in N scale are quite small, and very hard to see under typical layout conditions unless you have good lighting (not to mention good glasses).  If painted a blended-in color and/or covered by ballast then they become quite hard to see in any case.

One other caveat about going to scale-sized rail and spikes for photography:   When those are close to scale-sized, it makes all of the other oversized details in the photos start to jump out more:  oversized wheels, ballast, couplers (with wire trip pins), handrails, molded-on ladders, high-riding cars, and so on.  Depending on how much you care about that stuff, it can trend toward an all-or-nothing situation (or else it becomes a temptation to switch to a larger scale).

Ed

[ednadolski]

But using that particular vantage point really makes those rails look massive.  I would like to see a shot like that with code 40 track.

Code 55 rail will always look more massive in closeups, because it is actually a representation of 75 lb. rail in HO scale.  So the rail head width is nearly twice the scale size for N scale, and because it is polished/shiny for electrical contact it is far more noticeable in photos and in person, and from greater distances.  You can kind of think of it as the equivalent of Code 100 rail in HO.

Ed

[chuck geiger]

BTW Home Depot has 7.79 containers of sanded grout in a few colors.

[motofavorite]

@Bendtracker1,

Following @bbussey's advice, I centered the phone on the track with the phone sitting directly on the rails and the lens at the bottom right.  Since it was getting late at night, I improvised and used a small clamp and a block to hold the phone steady.  I'll find something a little more substantial next time, but it worked.



Nice!

DFF

Your experiment turned out well. I don't know why, but those F units remind me of an airbrushed publicity photograph. Also, the first unit looks like it's leaning forward just a little bit, as if it's digging deep to haul the train. Maybe because the F units are matched and immaculate and the train is captured in a three-quarter view?

[OldEastRR]

@bbussey @davefoxx

Better?

Now you should juxtaposition your prototype pic of that scene next to this one. Looked like almost the same perspective.

[davefoxx]

@Bendtracker1,

That model of No. 4710 might be my favorite of your fleet.  And, hey!  From the front, it looks like it could be a locomotive in a so-so bicentennial scheme. 

DFF

[Bendtracker1]

@Bendtracker1,

That model of No. 4710 might be my favorite of your fleet.  And, hey!  From the front, it looks like it could be a locomotive in a so-so bicentennial scheme. 

DFF

Thanks Dave!
It has been referred to as the quasi Bicentennial unit before. 

[robert3985]

Even Code 40 looks massive when you're at an ant's-eye view.  One could build a diorama strictly for photography with scale-sized rail.  But I wouldn't want to have to maintain an operating layout with it.  From 10 scale stories above the rail, it's not nearly as obvious.

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

[nkalanaga]

Most modern American N scale wheels seem to be "64 Tread" wheels, which are basically HOn3 standards.  They run fine on code 40, even if it's (very carefully) spiked with ME 1/4 inch spikes.

When I replaced the wheels on my Arnold/Rapido FA, I used HOn3 64-tread wheels, and they match the N NMRA gauge perfectly.

[peteski]

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 (4) - Key FEF-3 on Code 40 Park City Branch 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.

[ednadolski]

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.

In general the shiny surfaces are what stand out the most.  There usually isn't too much shine in a proto pic, so it becomes a visual cue for a model. In that particular pic, to my eye it's the shiny wheel face that dominates, then the flanges.   The treads would be more apparent in a more edge-on view.

Overall I think you'd see basically the same regardless of the rail height, but I didn't think that was the point of the pic in that context.

Most modern American N scale wheels seem to be "64 Tread" wheels, which are basically HOn3 standards.

Code 64 is the tread size for Proto:87 wheels.  For HOn3 it looks like NWSL has codes 88, 72, and 64 (I haven't checked what the NMRA says, so not sure if they all have the same profile).


(Edit - If you're curious what a scale wheel profile might look like, I have a few recent pics here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=53867.msg738768#msg738768.   The wheels/trucks/rails are not weathered, tho the wheel faces do have the factory blackening.)

Ed