--- In STMFC@..., "David" wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "Arved" wrote:

Do the wheels on your model have NMRA RP25 contours? Those "Code 110" wheels mandated by NMRA standard S4.2 have a tread width that's more accurate for S scale, than HO.

Code 110 wheelsets are sold as "scale" (versus Flyer barrels) in S. I find it amusing that P:64 wheels are code 87, while P:87 wheels are code 64. The true scale wheels do look much better, but then you have to fill in the backs of the truck sideframes.

David Thompson

So, what's a "Code 88 wheel"? Just another in a long line of halfway measures.
If you guys want true fidelity to scale, go to P:87, as expressed in NMRA S-4.1
Wheels, Proto&Fine Scales. What's the matter? Don't like being limited to 60"
minimum radius? Neither are most of the other practitioners in model
railroading, so we manufacturers have to provide what the market dictates. Those
of you that want to go Proto scale, have at it.

Dennis

Over on the HO list there is a current thread about code 100 rail, mixing eras, etc. Old fashion playing with trains sort of stuff and they are wondering why some hobbyists take it to such extremes!
I'm curious Dennis. How large a share of the hobby market, and dollars spent, are the 2 ends of the spectrum? Has the industry any statistics?


Scott Haycock
Modeling Tarheel country in the Land of Enchantm ent

Scott,

What is wrong with code 100? It is the closest we have for PRR's 156 lbs mainline rail! It all depends on what you are modeling...

The bottom line is that this group was, is and hopefully will be the trend setters in prototype modeling. We're the list with members who put grab irons inside covered hoppers and then close the hatches, we're the group that counts rivets and measures rivet head size. We're NOT the market force in RTR styrene, but we are in resin. We influence the styrene market heavily, not by our purchases but by the information that many of us, as "consultants" to companies such as Walthers, Intermountain, BLI etc, provide. And in doing that, we have in the past and continue today to drive the market towards more prototypic models.

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/


"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."

__

/ \

__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________

|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |

| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||

|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|

| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

Bruce, I know that's true, but how common was 156lb rail on the PRR, really? I grew up in PRR territory and none
of the rail I ever saw was 156lb. Of course I didn't go out on the Middle Division, maybe that's where they used it...

Tim

--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@... wrote:

Bruce, I know that's true, but how common was 156lb rail on the PRR, really? I grew up in PRR territory and none
of the rail I ever saw was 156lb. Of course I didn't go out on the Middle Division, maybe that's where they used it...

IIRC the 156# stuff was only used on the line from Pittsburgh up to the Lake Erie ore docks, and maybe a handful of other small locations. The rest of the main system was the usual 120-130# rail that everyone else used for heavy traffic. Code 100 rail really should be banished from HO on general principle.

David Thompson

David, I would humbly disagree with you regarding both of your comments. First of all, the PRR used their 156 lb. rail on their mainlines throughout Pennsylvania, on both the Middle Division and on both sides of the climb over the Allegheny Mountains. The reason for this heavy rail was NOT due to traffic weight, but to absorb the heavy pounding of the locomotives that were used on these lines (primairly class I1sa with an main rod thickness of 11.75" at the end of the rod). Once the diesel had banished the I1s, the PRR relaid the line with 132 lb. rail.
 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: David <jaydeet2001@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:11 AM
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar


 
--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@... wrote:

Bruce, I know that's true, but how common was 156lb rail on the PRR, really? I grew up in PRR territory and none
of the rail I ever saw was 156lb. Of course I didn't go out on the Middle Division, maybe that's where they used it...

IIRC the 156# stuff was only used on the line from Pittsburgh up to the Lake Erie ore docks, and maybe a handful of other small locations. The rest of the main system was the usual 120-130# rail that everyone else used for heavy traffic. Code 100 rail really should be banished from HO on general principle.

David Thompson




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Or,  more likely, you aren't old enough to remember it, Tim...


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: "timboconnor@..." <timboconnor@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar


 

Bruce, I know that's true, but how common was 156lb rail on the PRR, really? I grew up in PRR territory and none
of the rail I ever saw was 156lb. Of course I didn't go out on the Middle Division, maybe that's where they used it...

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce F. Smith" smithbf@...>

What is wrong with code 100? It is the closest we have for PRR's 156 lbs mainline rail! It all depends on what you are modeling...

Bruce F. Smith






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But Bill, the PRR ran I1's on branchlines too, did they not?

I'd be willing to bet that the branchlines that used the I's were also laid with 156 lb rail. But, the era of steam ended before I started to get out, so I can't say for sure. But then at 63 years of age I'm a relative youngster...


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: "timboconnor@..." <timboconnor@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar


 

But Bill, the PRR ran I1's on branchlines too, did they not?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Daniels" billinsf@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:02:21 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

David, I would humbly disagree with you regarding both of your comments. First of all, the PRR used their 156 lb. rail on their mainlines throughout Pennsylvania, on both the Middle Division and on both sides of the climb over the Allegheny Mountains. The reason for this heavy rail was NOT due to traffic weight, but to absorb the heavy pounding of the locomotives that were used on these lines (primairly class I1sa with an main rod thickness of 11.75" at the end of the rod). Once the diesel had banished the I1s, the PRR relaid the line with 132 lb. rail.

Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Caloroso's book on the PRR Elmira Branch makes two interesting statements. (1) In the 40s and 50s, coal and merchandise trains on this branch (Williamsport - Elmira - Sodus Point) moved behind I1s engines. I1s appeared in the mid-20s, but were restricted north of Elmira till the early 40s, when bridges were strengthened. [p 18] Many photos in the book confirm the use of I1s. (2) Also in the 20s, PRR gave the branch 130-pound rail and stone ballast. [p 12] I've found no mention of further upgrading. If anyone has track charts, it may be possible to check this statement.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

Now that I've had a chance to think about it, my latest thought on rail weight is that not only is rod pounding an issue in the choice of rail weight, but also the frequency of trains on a particular line. Now the Elmira Branch had quite a bit of traffic, but nowhere as much as ran on the mainline. And ore jennys (specialized freight cars that were built to carry iron ore, which is quite heavy) would increase the load carried per unit length on a rail line, not by higher capacity (this was dictated by the journal size) but by smaller size. As I recall from my days in Upper Michigan watching ore trains (instead of studying), a 34' hopper car was about twice the length of an ore jenny. So, in the same length of track, an ore train using jennys could put twice the load of a comparable train consisting of hopper cars (and some lines, especially, but not limited to, the Mt. Carmel Ore Train going up the line to Wilkes-Barrie from Northumberland, PA.) carried
iron ore in standard hoppers which were only half full, but at their maximum load weight. The reason, I think, may have been due to a lighter track structure on this line, and may explain why the PRR line up to the Cleveland docks was relaid to 156 lb rail. BTW, the Mt. Carmel Ore Train was a temporary operation, and being such was not a candidate for upgrading.


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: al_brown03 <abrown@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar


 
Caloroso's book on the PRR Elmira Branch makes two interesting statements. (1) In the 40s and 50s, coal and merchandise trains on this branch (Williamsport - Elmira - Sodus Point) moved behind I1s engines. I1s appeared in the mid-20s, but were restricted north of Elmira till the early 40s, when bridges were strengthened. [p 18] Many photos in the book confirm the use of I1s. (2) Also in the 20s, PRR gave the branch 130-pound rail and stone ballast. [p 12] I've found no mention of further upgrading. If anyone has track charts, it may be possible to check this statement.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@..., Bill Daniels wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that the branchlines that used the I's were also laid with 156 lb rail. But, the era of steam ended before I started to get out, so I can't say for sure. But then at 63 years of age I'm a relative youngster...


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: "timboconnor@..."
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar


 

But Bill, the PRR ran I1's on branchlines too, did they not?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Daniels" billinsf@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:02:21 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

David, I would humbly disagree with you regarding both of your comments. First of all, the PRR used their 156 lb. rail on their mainlines throughout Pennsylvania, on both the Middle Division and on both sides of the climb over the Allegheny Mountains. The reason for this heavy rail was NOT due to traffic weight, but to absorb the heavy pounding of the locomotives that were used on these lines (primairly class I1sa with an main rod thickness of 11.75" at the end of the rod). Once the diesel had banished the I1s, the PRR relaid the line with 132 lb. rail.

Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bruce,
Pennsy through Loudonville Ohio had 156 pd rail, teenager back then and PC was blasting past us.

Mark Morgan

I don't know about 156# rail but I have track charts of the Connemaugh
Div (1940), Pittsburgh Div (1951 and 1958) and Cresson Branch (1951 and
1956) all with 152# rail for the mainline and the primary track of the
Cresson Branch.

Rich Orr

I seem to remember hearing about 152 lb. rail, now that I think of it. I must have picked up the wrong number from a certain Veterinary Professor down south! I know that nothing that heavy was ever used less than 1500 miles from where I am now...


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: "SUVCWORR@..." <SUVCWORR@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar


 
I don't know about 156# rail but I have track charts of the Connemaugh
Div (1940), Pittsburgh Div (1951 and 1958) and Cresson Branch (1951 and
1956) all with 152# rail for the mainline and the primary track of the
Cresson Branch.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Daniels billinsf@...>
To: STMFC STMFC@...>
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re:
Revell Flatcar

David, I would humbly disagree with you regarding both of your
comments. First
of all, the PRR used their 156 lb. rail on their mainlines throughout
Pennsylvania, on both the Middle Division and on both sides of the
climb over
the Allegheny Mountains. The reason for this heavy rail was NOT due to
traffic
weight, but to absorb the heavy pounding of the locomotives that were
used on
these lines (primairly class I1sa with an main rod thickness of 11.75"
at the
end of the rod). Once the diesel had banished the I1s, the PRR relaid
the line
with 132 lb. rail.
 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA

________________________________
From: David jaydeet2001@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:11 AM
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re:
Revell
Flatcar

 
--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@... wrote:

Bruce, I know that's true, but how common was 156lb rail on the PRR,

really? I
grew up in PRR territory and none

of the rail I ever saw was 156lb. Of course I didn't go out on the

Middle
Division, maybe that's where they used it...

IIRC the 156# stuff was only used on the line from Pittsburgh up to the
Lake
Erie ore docks, and maybe a handful of other small locations. The rest
of the
main system was the usual 120-130# rail that everyone else used for
heavy
traffic. Code 100 rail really should be banished from HO on general
principle.

David Thompson

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Not just the PRR, either. The Bessemer and Lake Erie used rail around the 152-pound-per-yard mark in its main tracks, too.

Steve Lucas.

Steve,

I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but this is the first time I've heard that anyone other than the PRR used 152 lb. rail.


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: midrly <midrly@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:02 AM
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar


 
Not just the PRR, either. The Bessemer and Lake Erie used rail around the 152-pound-per-yard mark in its main tracks, too.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., Bill Daniels wrote:

I seem to remember hearing about 152 lb. rail, now that I think of it. I must have picked up the wrong number from a certain Veterinary Professor down south! I know that nothing that heavy was ever used less than 1500 miles from where I am now...


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA

I'm puzzled by the references to 156# rail. PRR's 152# and 155# sections are documented in (prototype) engineering literature and vendor's catalogs, but I'm unaware of 156#. Is this just a typo that's been perpetuated in this thread, or was there a third heavy rail section on the Pennsy? My recollection is that the 152# rail was designed in the late '20s, and the 155# was an improved design dating from sometime in the '40s. Overall dimensions remained the same: 8" h., 6 3/4" base, 3" head width. The 155# section had a deeper, redesigned head and improved fillet between head and web.

Both sections were introduced many years after the the I1s type and other heavy power was placed in service. Obviously I1s could and did operate safely on lighter rail. The purpose of moving to heavier rail sections was to attain an improvement in service life that would more than offset the cost of the added metal. Locomotive characteristics, axle loads, gross tonnage, operating speeds, grades and curvature are factors that come into play.

FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)

Jack Mullen writes (but didn't sign his post):

"I'm puzzled by the references to 156# rail. PRR's 152# and 155# sections are documented in (prototype) engineering literature and vendor's catalogs, but I'm unaware of 156#. Is this just a typo that's been perpetuated in this thread, or was there a third heavy rail section on the Pennsy? My recollection is that the 152# rail was designed in the late '20s, and the 155# was an improved design dating from sometime in the '40s. Overall dimensions remained the same: 8" h., 6 3/4" base, 3" head width. The 155# section had a deeper, redesigned head and improved fillet between head and web.

Both sections were introduced many years after the the I1s type and other heavy power was placed in service. Obviously I1s could and did operate safely on lighter rail. The purpose of moving to heavier rail sections was to attain an improvement in service life that would more than offset the cost of the added metal. Locomotive characteristics, axle loads, gross tonnage, operating speeds, grades and curvature are factors that come into play.

FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)"



Jack,
So you are asking me to consider changing scales because my PRR Mainline will likely be laid with track that is not quite but close to 7/8" of a scale inch too tall? Nope, won't do it, "I'd rather fight than switch..." 3^)

Perhaps, the Pennsy in the forties didn't have the extensive amount of 155 lbs rail as is being expressed here, but no doubt as we moved toward the mid-fifties it was likely more extensive than is expressed here. I would tend to believe that coal hauling eastern railways were all making their moves in that directions for all the reason you mention. So I'll use the code 100 rail that I have collected over the years as well as the turnouts and crossings on my mainlines, weather them to my liking and add secondaries and sidings out of lighter rail when visible.

Greg Martin



.

FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)"

Jack,
So you are asking me to consider changing scales because my PRR Mainline will likely be laid with track that is not quite but close to 7/8" of a scale inch too tall? Nope, won't do it, "I'd rather fight than switch..." 3^)

Greg Martin

Or you could get our a mill file and......



Scott Haycock
,___

Jack,

156# was a slip on my part in the intial thread that I later corrected to 155#

regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
From: STMFC@... [STMFC@...] on behalf of moonmuln [jack.f.mullen@...]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:58 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re: Revell Flatcar

I'm puzzled by the references to 156# rail. PRR's 152# and 155# sections are documented in (prototype) engineering literature and vendor's catalogs, but I'm unaware of 156#. Is this just a typo that's been perpetuated in this thread, or was there a third heavy rail section on the Pennsy? My recollection is that the 152# rail was designed in the late '20s, and the 155# was an improved design dating from sometime in the '40s. Overall dimensions remained the same: 8" h., 6 3/4" base, 3" head width. The 155# section had a deeper, redesigned head and improved fillet between head and web.

Both sections were introduced many years after the the I1s type and other heavy power was placed in service. Obviously I1s could and did operate safely on lighter rail. The purpose of moving to heavier rail sections was to attain an improvement in service life that would more than offset the cost of the added metal. Locomotive characteristics, axle loads, gross tonnage, operating speeds, grades and curvature are factors that come into play.

FWIW 8" is around 0.092" in HO, so code 100 is about 9% oversize in height.. In O, code 172 is about 3% over (for 48:1) or under (for 45:1), so perhaps you should consider a different scale. ;>)


--- In STMFC@..., SUVCWORR@... wrote:

I don't know about 156# rail but I have track charts of the Connemaugh
Div (1940), Pittsburgh Div (1951 and 1958) and Cresson Branch (1951 and
1956) all with 152# rail for the mainline and the primary track of the
Cresson Branch.

Rich Orr


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Daniels
To: STMFC
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re:
Revell Flatcar


David, I would humbly disagree with you regarding both of your
comments. First
of all, the PRR used their 156 lb. rail on their mainlines throughout
Pennsylvania, on both the Middle Division and on both sides of the
climb over
the Allegheny Mountains. The reason for this heavy rail was NOT due to
traffic
weight, but to absorb the heavy pounding of the locomotives that were
used on
these lines (primairly class I1sa with an main rod thickness of 11.75"
at the
end of the rod). Once the diesel had banished the I1s, the PRR relaid
the line
with 132 lb. rail.
Â
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: David
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:11 AM
Subject: [STMFC] The wheels on the bus go round and round, was Re:
Revell
Flatcar


Â
--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@ wrote:

Bruce, I know that's true, but how common was 156lb rail on the PRR,

really? I
grew up in PRR territory and none

of the rail I ever saw was 156lb. Of course I didn't go out on the

Middle
Division, maybe that's where they used it...

IIRC the 156# stuff was only used on the line from Pittsburgh up to the
Lake
Erie ore docks, and maybe a handful of other small locations. The rest
of the
main system was the usual 120-130# rail that everyone else used for
heavy
traffic. Code 100 rail really should be banished from HO on general
principle.

David Thompson




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/