Railcraft vs. ME c40 ?

[wcfn100]

So we've covered that newer ME c40 rail isn't really c40 but c43.  I was hoping someone could measure the width of the rail head for me on the old Railcraft c40.

I'm a bit on the fence now about using ME c40 since I found out the rail head is wider than Atlas c55 (it always looked a bit squat, and now I know why).  I'm curious how the old Railcraft compares.

Thanks,

Jason

[robert3985]

So we've covered that newer ME c40 rail isn't really c40 but c43.  I was hoping someone could measure the width of the rail head for me on the old Railcraft c40.

I'm a bit on the fence now about using ME c40 since I found out the rail head is wider than Atlas c55 (it always looked a bit squat, and now I know why).  I'm curious how the old Railcraft compares.

Thanks,

Jason

First off, you have to realize that N-scale rail...especially code 70, code 55 and code 40 is actually HO-scale rail, so the railheads are proportionally wider than they'd be if drawn for N-scale. 

Secondly, your information is wrong.  Atlas C55 railheads are .026" wide (as is both Rail Craft and ME C55 rails), and both Rail Craft and Micro Engineering C40 railheads are .020", with some being a mil wider and some a couple of mils narrower.

What is important operationally is that Micro Engineering C40 flex from the new molds, has .007" less clearance than either Rail Craft or the original ME C40 flex, with a flange clearance of only .020" vs .027" for the old stuff, even though the new rail is as high as .045".  Old RC and ME C40 rails also hit .043", but can be as low as .038" from my sample measurements with my Starrett mic.

What this means, is that you're gonna have to sand down all of your ME C40 spikeheads on the inside of the rails so that common engines such as Kato F's and E's will run on the track.  This isn't difficult, but you have to be careful so as not to sand the spikeheads completely away.  Frankly, I find that this actually improves the looks of the track, but I only do it on the insides of the rails.   I've posted photos of ME C40 flex I've done this to here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=34508.0

When building my Echo LDE, it was part of a club layout, and many members has not yet converted to Lo-pros, but I wanted my Park City Yard and the branchline to be code 40 rails.  I decided to hand-lay all of the trackage on PCB ties (every fifth tie), which gave me a full .040" clearance for even pizza cutters, but eliminated any tie-plate, spikehead details.  Being anal about my track, I've contemplated many protocols for adding tie-plates and spikehead details, but every time I actually set out to do it, the details are so incredibly small that I am still hesitant to begin the project.

As for the railhead width...C40 rails and flex railheads are noticeably narrower than C55 to my eye, and it shows up in quality photos also, so I would put aside your worry that it's way out of proportion.  If you're using Atlas flex and turnouts, the huge "spikeheads" on their track is way more objectionable to my eye than the width of a railhead.  That said, one model railroader who I highly respect (Ed Nadolski) finds C55 railhead so objectionably wide that he has made a tool to grind them down to a more real looking width.  Each of our eyes and preferences are different, that's for sure!

Here's a photo comparing painted, weathered and ballasted C55 track to each other, the two UP mainlines being RC C55 and the branchline in the foreground being hand-laid C40:


Now that ME C40 (or C43) track is out there with its increased height, I comes pretty close to mainline rail for many real railroads, but, as I am sure you know, you're gonna have to make every single one of your turnouts by hand (luckly, C40 rail is easy to work with), and you'll have to sand every inside spikehead before most engines will run on it.  If you're willing to do that for realism's sake, more power to you!

However, I've found that what makes track look "real" to my eye, and to my camera, is not the rail height, but the ties and their associated detailing.  Just to prove that point, here's a photo of Wilhemina Pass on my old Ntrak modules where I used Rail Craft C70 track.  Frankly, I don't even notice the rail height:


However, when taking really close close-ups, I DO notice the track height, and my short little section of my hand laid C40 Park City Branchline is always where I take my engine and rolling stock portraits...what I don't really miss are the spikeheads and tie-plates.  Them not being there doesn't jump out and grab me unless I obsess about 'em, and I've never had anyone comment about their absence either.  Here's a sample close-up shot:


Anyway, track is great fun for me and IMO, you're gonna be okay with ME C40...with a couple of caveats.

[peteski]

I find it amusing that in this thread there is lots of grousing about slightly out-of-scale size of spikes and the railhead width (of items which in N scale out of necessity have to be oversize anyway), yet in another thread we are giving a free pass to a new model of a wooden reefer which seems to have 2 scale inch wide and deep gaps between its boards on the sides and roof.  And this type of oversize detail on that model could easily be made more in-scale. 

[Scottl]

Don't forget the Foob thread, too

I'm OK with people that are really worried about the appearance of their models and the two things in n scale I find visually out of whack the most are handrails and track, especially code 80.  Robert may be anal about his track (by his own words ), but I won't deny it looks superb.

[wcfn100]

Secondly, your information is wrong.  Atlas C55 railheads are .026" wide (as is both Rail Craft and ME C55 rails), and both Rail Craft and Micro Engineering C40 railheads are .020", with some being a mil wider and some a couple of mils narrower.

Sorry Bob for having to write all that out (or is that just a copy/paste at this point  ).  Total brain fart on my end.  I was remembering that Atlas c80 rail head was narrower then their c55 and transposed that to c40 vs c55. 

God I hope this isn't me getting older. 

Jason

[robert3985]

I find it amusing that in this thread there is lots of grousing about slightly out-of-scale size of spikes and the railhead width (of items which in N scale out of necessity have to be oversize anyway), yet in another thread we are giving a free pass to a new model of a wooden reefer which seems to have 2 scale inch wide and deep gaps between its boards on the sides and roof.  And this type of oversize detail on that model could easily be made more in-scale. 

Actually I do not do "grousing"...I simply state facts.

Hahaha...I find several ironies amusing also.  The one I find most amusing is when an obviously talented modeler takes hundreds of hours to modify or kitbash a particular engine, doing research and settling on an exact time period, paint scheme, lettering font, etc., etc., then, when it's all done with hundreds of photos to document his research, sets it on plain, pure stock Kato Unitrack to take photos of his masterpiece...with a joint in the middle...or runs it on a layout that has Peco C55 or unpainted Atlas C80 for everything!

A couple of times I've been so curious as to the thought process that totally ignores track, while lavishing treasure and time on the model engine or car that I've asked what the thought process is in the thread...only to have the modeler become highly irate and offended...and the moderators delete my comments!!  Guess I should just laugh privately at the irony and not attempt to ask questions or understand it! 

By the way, I agree with your opinion on the reefer.  Doesn't take any more effort to get the sheathing correct, or the attached stirrups smaller or the door hinges finer.  Truth is, since there's less metal to be machined away, it should take LESS effort. I will not be buying any even though I could certainly use 40's and 50's Wilson and Swift reefers in my operating scheme.

As for N-scale track and rail, the "spikeheads" do not "...have to be oversize..." in N-scale as you state Peter.  Peco could, with their rail-imbedded injection molding, make near perfectly proportioned N-scale North American track since their "spikeheads" and "tie-plates" are simply cosmetic and do nothing to hold their imbedded rail onto their molded ties, so they could easily be scale sized.  They could also draw properly proportioned N-scale rail (the visible portion) for both mainlines and sidings/spurs/branchlines since their rail drawings are obviously proprietary anyway.  When I look at their N-scale track vs their HO-scale track, I inevitably scratch my head and ask rhetorically, "Why didn't you do it right in N-scale Peco?"...

Ah well...I don't lose any sleep over it... 

[robert3985]

Sorry Bob for having to write all that out (or is that just a copy/paste at this point  ).  Total brain fart on my end.  I was remembering that Atlas c80 rail head was narrower then their c55 and transposed that to c40 vs c55. 

God I hope this isn't me getting older. 

Jason

Jason,

Meh...Don't worry about it.  I'm a 100+ wpm typist and although I don't do any "cut and paste" for my comments, I enjoy refreshing my memory when I answer the questions...so, no problemo! 

Hopefully, perhaps another reader will benefit from this thread...

[nkalanaga]

According to some OLD BN numbers, their 132# rail would scale to code 45, and 115# would be code 41, so Robert3985 is right when he says that code 43 is "pretty close" for many modern mainlines.  It's right in the middle of the common range!

As for Peco's "code 55", it's a great idea operationally, but has one problem visually: you can't see between the ties under the rail.

[peteski]

As for Peco's "code 55", it's a great idea operationally, but has one problem visually: you can't see between the ties under the rail.

Most flex track (or any track with plastic ties) has a rib of solid plastic under the rail.  Or at least there is a rib between some of the ties.  Personally I don't think this is a problem as the track is usually ballasted to the point where you can't see any daylight under the track.  I do like the way Peco C55 track is constructed and I think that if it was made to US dimensions it would be a huge seller.

Robert, I should have been more precise.  My point was that the track discussion here points out some very small discrepancies in the model track vs. the prototype, and how that is detrimental to the overall visual fidelity and appeal.  In order to fix the track problem there would be a lot of effort involved (like you said, a total redesign of the product and having a new rail made which is not trivial).

Yet, we ignore just as glaring of a discrepancy in a brand new model reefer which, as we both agree on, could be easily fixed.  I guess the reasons as to why manufacturers choose what to do (Or not do) will probably always be a mystery to us hobbyists.

[nkalanaga]

Peteski:  It's true that most flex track has the rib, and that it usually doesn't matter.  It holds the ties in alignment, thus the track in gauge, and makes it stronger.  However, in places where one wants to see the gap, usually on poorly maintained track, it can be removed.  Peco's can't be removed, which could be an issue for some people.

If Peco track was available in US standards I'd be quite willing to use it, especially for my mainline.  The sections I have in my staging yard work very well, and are almost indestructible.

[sdodge]

20 years ago I chose to use Shinohara code 60 flex track for my shortline layout. One of the reasons was the tie spacing which had more spacing than most flex track and is not prototypical but sorta gave the illusion of shortline track. I still like the look but I like the code 40 look better - good job.

[VonRyan]

I'll just point out that Peco's fixtures are supposed to be chairs rather than spikes. That being said, they're still oversized, just not as much as you'd think.

[nkalanaga]

Cody:  You're right, and Peco track is intended for British modelers, which means it's not only not 1:160, but their prototype track standards are a lot different.  For all I know it may be quite accurate for British track.

[VonRyan]

Cody:  You're right, and Peco track is intended for British modelers, which means it's not only not 1:160, but their prototype track standards are a lot different.  For all I know it may be quite accurate for British track.

It's ok. But it could be better.

For the diehard track aficionado, there is this http://www.britishfinescale.com/product-p/finetrax-flexi-metre.htm
Code 40 British Prototype track with scale sleepers and chairs. Plus the rail is the correct Bullhead profile.

[Kisatchie]

It's ok. But it could be better.

For the diehard track aficionado, there is this http://www.britishfinescale.com/product-p/finetrax-flexi-metre.htm
Code 40 British Prototype track with scale sleepers and chairs. Plus the rail is the correct Bullhead profile.

One meter of track costs 5 pounds (ouch), and on top of that, you have to put the track components together yourself.


Hmm... my budget allows
for .2 meters of track...