Re: Scale rail size etc.


Hi,Anyone for 85 lb rail?

----- Original Message -----
From: <CBarkan@...>
To: <STMFC@...>; <brockm@...>; <SGL2@...>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:36 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Scale rail size etc.

<< " Most of us turn a blind eye to this which is perhaps the most
unprototypical looking aspect of model railroads. It is especially
in the
special work with all the grossly too wide flangeways etc."

In a message dated 8/14/03 6:21:56 PM, brockm@... responds:

<<Is there anything else other than the flangeway that is incorrect? I
recently measured some ME code 83 rail and it matches perfectly with some
ARA 132 lb
rail dimensions. I say some because the '55 Track cyc includes many [bad
text] om the distance we usually view it compared to most model railroad

With Mike's indulgence (the premise is that this ID's who is under most
pressure to get their freight car wheels sized correctly so they can build
protypical track!), I will cite a some statistics from the engineering side
of the
house on the mileage of "Weight of rail in main tracks" for a sample of
roads of
interest to readers of this list from Lewis' "Handbook of American
(1st edition, 1951):

Railroad <100 lb. 100 to 129 lb. ≥130 lb.
AT&SF 7,667 3,704 3,133
B&O 1,853 2,841 2,867
B&M 981 1,009 (≤115) 176
C&O 1,109 1,703 (≤115) 2,653
C&NW 5,833 4,538 (≤115) none
CB&Q 5,222 3,817 305
CMStP&P 3,209 6,746 1,078
CRI&P 3,679 3,638 199
DL&W 205 455 885
D&RGW 818 925 208
Erie 242 1,979 1,083
GN 5,557 2,655 91
GM&O 1,974 813 2
IC 3,987 3,303 162
KCS 121 746 none
LV 283 407 (≤120) 1,100
L&N 1,370 3,038 784
M&StL 882 419 (≤112) none
MKT 2,520 562 none
MP 924 237 none
NYC 2,070 12,659 2
NKP 715 1,286 328
NYNH&H 1,489 1,208 789
N&W 111 100 (=100 lb.) 2,538
NP 4,166 2,745 330
PRR 1,486 3,227 9,671
RDG Co. 268 240 1,466
RF&P none none 248
Rutland 322 5 none
SL&SF 3,044 1,650 65
SLSW 750 641 none
SAL 1,704 2,322 (≤115) 267
SOU 3,521 3,405 1,275
SP 6,053 5,202 1,713
UP 4,346 1,133 4,730
Virginian 23 68 534
Wabash 817 1,472 50
WM 205 249 373

I haven't totaled this but it looks like the modal value is 100 to 129, with
<100 the second most common, and ≥130 the least common. This is track
mileage, not route mileage. It is also important to remember what "main"
track here
is basically anything that is not siding or yard trackage, so it includes
secondary "mains". It is evident that the eastern roads, particularly the
tonnage, i.e. coal haulers, tended to have a higher percentage of heavy rail
some of the big western roads.

<< > Perhaps the idea that we do it in two steps would work?

In a message dated 8/14/03 11:09:17 PM, SGL2@... responds:

Two steps, OK. .088 NOW, and .064 (true scale) later. As others have said,

088s work now. True scale won't because of the flangeway issues. And that

next step will be Very Hard to get to.>>

Schuyler, Yes, that is what I had in mind. If 88 is compatible with much
what we use now then we would eliminate much of the present-day inertia to
resist change. If this in turn is generally compatible with the step to
scale, then we might accomplish that in the future. In fact, perhaps part
how we should adopt 88 now might be influenced by its future compatibility
scale track.

<<Oh, BTW, Chris, you said that you don't see the wheels. Try some, just

them around for a while, and you will wonder why your STEAM ERA FREIGHT CARS

have overshoes on . . . >>

I tried scale wheels 10 years ago and liked their appearance a great deal.
What I am saying is that from the angle we view most operating layouts,
oversize wheel treads (and the concommittent other truck size problems) are
noticeable than the oversize track problems. Of course close-up photos of
car models are an entirely different matter in which proper scale for
everything matters, but that wasn't the point of my previous post.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Join to automatically receive all group messages.