Handlaying track question.

Many thanks to Jerry, David Starr, Wolf, Ken, Steve, Chuck and others who responded. Especially the how-to details. Almost makes me want to give it a try. :) But I better get some experience with the regular track first.

As for all the codes, I'm not sure yet what to decide on that. The stuff I'll be doing is narrow gauge, backwoods stuff and I'm not sure what would be appropriate there.

Did get to look at some real track and realized that modern and steam era won't look the same. The new stuff has like brackets that rest below the rails on each tie with a spike on both sides through the bracket, per rail (4 total spikes per tie). I need to look at steam era track.

Thanks again!

~Brad fd64

Reply to
flyingdragon64
Loading thread data ...

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net spake thus:

The smalla da betta. The smallest you can get away with.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

formatting link

Reply to
Erik Olsen DK

Don't know, could very easily be. BUT, since most modelers are running equipment that varies from 'current production' to "hasn't been made in years" (maybe 50 or more), the problem is to be as accommodating as possible in track construction. The main gist of what I was saying, is that for other that NEM & large 'toy' flanges, any of the commercial flex tracks should work, be they code 100, 85, 70, 65, 55, and even possibly 40.

That is true, and I didn't mean to imply that the railroads ONLY used cast frogs. They don't. Particularly when in industrial areas and doing 'to fit' trackage.

That's a solution that will surely work. But it does eliminate the possibility of any visual "Smaller rail" 'when not on the main line' effects.

Chuck Davis

Reply to
Charles Davis

I'm running a mix of European/NEM wheelsets collected over the last thirty years along with RP 25 wheelsets on ME code 70 rail and Peco code

75 turnouts. (code 100 Atlas/Peco/etc in hidden areas) The models that won't run get new wheelsets or the old ones reprofiled on the lathe. 90% of my stock runs without upgrading.

Regards, Greg.P. NZ

Reply to
Greg Procter
[...]

Er, no, that's not so. The flangeway is narrow enough that the tread is actually supported at all times by rail. The tread is wide enough to bridge the flangeway. The flange is about 1/2" deep. Check out a real frog sometime -- you'll see that the flangeway is much deeper than that.

[...]
Reply to
Wolf

Yeah!!! ------ But with the variation in flange depth due to wheel wear etc., it's a 'crap shoot' anyway. The "Real Railroads" don't operate with "Model" speeds, sharpness of curves, etc. so hey don't see the same sorts of problems that modelers do. The question of 'what will work' gets the same answer. WITH 'minimal care', ANY of the commercial flex tracks WILL work acceptably.

Chuck Davis

Reply to
Charles Davis

I think it is true that some streetcar lines, etc. had frogs at crossings that would support the car on the flange. However, they had a bit more flexibility in that area since the cars were quite a bit lighter. I think this was done to prevent the hammer-blow of the wheel pounding over the gap in the rail from causing the track to slowly sink into the street. It would be a maintenance headache because of the need to tear up the street to put more ballast in.

Reply to
gl4316

Er, no, that's not so.

The AAR spec. for flange depth is 1.000in min. See

formatting link
page 11-12.

Why all that guessing?

Reply to
Erik Olsen DK

THAT may be the source of my info. When the 'ref.' is thirty to fifty years back in the stacks, some of the details get muddled. Chuck D.

Reply to
Charles Davis

You're right about flange depth. I thunk I recalled the correct dimension. I hope I'll recall it correctly in future. :-)

However, real frogs are not designed to support the flange. You'd actually get very rough riding if you did that, as an "average" flangeway depth would be too deep for new wheels and too shallow for worn wheels.

Reply to
Wolf

Strretcar lines tend to be much smaller and can therefore more easily have a single standard for flange depth. The usual reason for them using flange support is to eliminate one of the moving point rails at turnouts.

Reply to
Greg Procter

As someone else noted earlier in the thread, frogs that support the flange are usually confined to street railway special work - my local tramway museum has an excellent example of a scissors crossover of this type.

Becoming very common on the railway I work for are high-speed turnouts with moving frogs, know locally as "swing-nose crossing" turnouts. These close against the route set, providing a continuous path for the wheel throughout the turnout. The crossing motors are separate from the points

- when they have to be wound manually you must remember to wind all four!

Reply to
Mark Newton

A lot of the old street railway trade literature emphasises the minimisation of pounding and noise as the main benefit of using crossings that support the flange.

Reply to
Mark Newton

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.