Ideas For Bad Track

"Andrew Carr" <

Ditch the steel'

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

Incorporate positive and negative vertical curves if you can. The closer you build to prototype, the tighter these tolerances become. And (I know, prototypically it's an oxymoron) if you use Kadee's, and have a curve on a positive (convex with the track on top) curve, you will find you may have invented a new remote Kadee uncoupling system. And ditch the steel, as per the other poster.

Steve Magee Newcastle NSW Aust

For my benefit, why not use steel track? I thought that the general opinion of it was that it's a Bad Thing. As Andrew *wants* bad track, surely the use of steel can only be "good" (in the context that it's bad, if you see what I mean)?

PhilD

"PhilD"

One word. "Rust".

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

He wants bad track, but he wants good electricity. Ferric Oxide (aka rust) is a non-conductor at the voltages/current that we use.

Steve

PhilD wrote:-

Not if you are Triang collector :o) Magnadhesion locos prefer steel track to nickel silver and are also designed to run on Code 140 rail not Code 100 as is commonly assumed.

(kim)

The first time I fell for this Nickel Silver is better propaganda (40 yrs ago)I spent a day relaying the grade on my then TT3 layout. Suddenly my 4 coach trains had to be reduced to one coach, this led to the discovery that Triang had fitted Magnadhesion to some of the TT locos, the class 31 in particular and not publicised it. The steel rail went back in quickly and I have used it ever since. Triang actually announced Magnadhesion when they introduced it to the 00 range a year later. I still have a magnadhesion equipped Triang Brittania running on my P4 layout and its still worth at least two coaches up my big hill compared to a similar loco without it. Now that steel rail is available in scale sizes for 4mm both BH and FB rail there is no need to use Nickel Silver at all unless you keep your layout in a very damp atmosphere. Much of mine is now over 30 years old and its not gone rusty yet, it needs less cleaning than Nickel Silver and looks better. Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

"Keith Norgrove" wrote

I've experimented with both at various times, including both on the same layout. Interestingly enough in the latter case trains most definitely slowed when running over the steel section, which suggests it doesn't transmit electricity quite so readily.

John.

Never ever get me to use steel rail, ever.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

I would have thought so too, John, but:

Somewhere, someone posted a table showing the relative resistance factors for a variety of materials, including steel and nickel silver. The steel conducted better. Now: let me add the howevers and buts. I do not know if there is "different" alloys of nickel silver, maybe some are better than others. Or better than steel. Dunno. Also, personal choice for me is to give each individual length of track its own feeder, so the relative merits of each may be moot. Again, dunno if it's necessary, but it gives me an increased piece of mind.

I wonder if there are any metallurgists/electrical boffins here who could comment on the suitability of stainless steel extrusions for rail?

Oh, and completely off topic, thanks to the MCC for releasing Darren Gough to play in the Tsunami fund-raiser of 10 Jan at the MCG. Asia v Rest Of World, its looking good!

Steve Newcastle NSW Aust

Well, while steel may conduct better, it oxidizes terribly... and its oxide is a rather good insulator. "Nickel silver", on the other hand, doesn't oxidize as quickly, and its oxide is a better conductor.

Remember, the ideal is for the track to look bad, yet at the same time, permit equipment to run over it without hesitation or derailment.

Therefore, to make the track "look" rough and still conduct, do NOT use steel rail. Ever, never, under any circumstances. Unless your using radio controlled live steam of course, then steel rail MAY be better.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

It might suggest that but the opposite is the truth as reference to data on electrical conductivity will tell you. But the numbers are not large enough to be of any consequence unless you have very long lengths without feeders. In such a case the resistance of the joints is going to be much more important. I still have a small section in NS built before code 75BH steel became available, there is no such effect detectable, it just needs more cleaning. Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

You probably share with Brisbane that high humidity situation. The Queenslanders take a similar vehement position! Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

What's the point in having deliberately bad test track whilst you will be making the effort to make sure that your layout track is as near perfect as you can get it?

Make your test track in the same stuff that you'll use on the layout. By all means have a crossover and reverse curve of the minimum radius you intend to use.

For example - there's no point in having first radius curves on your test track if you want to run some of the more recent offerings of Bachmann and Hornby - e.g Bachmann's Voyager.

There's no point in hacking the backs off the cylinders and trailing truck of your kit built DJH Duchess, to make it negotiate first radius curves, especially if you never intend to use first radius on your layout!

HTH, Mick