Ok, I'm going to dump a lot of data on you (AKA facts) and then give my opinion of the data at the end as it pertains to your application. I assume that 6061-T6 aluminum alloy is not in consideration here although I think it would be an excellent choice as the 6061-T6 is the same alloy used in the tail sections of Boeing aircraft and therefore should be strong enough for railroad use.
Technically, "Stainless Steel" is strictly a trade name applied to what are known as corrosion-resistant steels. It is a fabulous material that outperforms mild and alloy steels in so many different applications that no other material can match it. Stainless steel is similar to mild and alloy steels; it is an alloy of iron that contains at least 12% chromium. This high chromium content retards corrosion giving the steel its "stainless" quality. There are many alloys of stainless steel, which are broken down into two basic categories:
The chromium-nickel grades are the more common stainless steels used compared to the straight chromium types, due to the nickel content which provides excellent weldability and corrosion resistance. Also, this nickel improves some mechanical properties such as fatigue strength, toughness and ductility. People sometimes refer to stainless steels based on their chromium and nickel content: for instance, 18-8 stainless has 18% chromium and 8% nickel in it.
Stainless steel typically has a rather low carbon content, in the range of .08% to .15%, and sometimes as low as .03%. The carbon is needed for hardness, but it also can cause the stainless to become susceptible to corrosion at high temperatures. Some stainless steels are known as low carbon grades to minimize this carbide precipitation; others, such as 321, are special alloys that reduce carbide precipitation by combining and stabilizing the chromium at elevated temperatures.
A three-digit numerical classification system is used throughout the industry. We need to be familiar with only one of these three-digit series within the system - the 300 series. 304 is the most inexpensive and available stainless in the 300 series. It does not have the high temperature fatigue resistance that 321 does, but is considerably less costly and much more available. I would suspect that most available stainless steel track is from a 304 series.
Modulus of elasticity, coefficient of thermal expansion, and coefficient of thermal conductivity are too small to consider as a basis of comparison between stainless and nickel-silver, but coefficient of thermal expansion is a factor in using aluminum as it is around 30% greater (13.1 compared to 9.9) and if you live in an area with large temperature changes this must be considered.
Nickel-silver is in fact copper alloy C75700 made from copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc. The common 18% nickel content in most railroad track is resistant to atmospheric corrosion and acids. Outdoor samples develop a thin brownish green protective patina, however all nickel-silver alloy will tarnish in the presence of sulfur. Little can be said about it's properties unless a specific metallurgy is known, but assuming a standard 18% nickel content, it ranks very similar to brass in conductivity, workability and, surprisingly, corrosion resistance.
Knowing all this, my opinion is to use nickel-silver if you want the rails to weather eventually to a brownish green and still have the workability of brass, BUT since you live in an area subject to acid rain, corrosion will set in and tarnish the rails. Use stainless if you want a rail to be forever silver, but keep in mind that it is much harder to solder or bend. Now take into consideration what is readily available and stainless comes out on top with the most choices. If I had to choose I would use aluminum, but given your criteria I would have to logically pick stainless as the clear choice of material.
Just my
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
Snoq.
A couple of things that I forgot to mention regarding the Nickle Plated track.
1. I have been told that it is the LGB Brass Track with Plating on it so the electrical conductivity is the same as BRASS.
2. I read in one of the threads that the OXIDATION that forms on the Nickle Plating is much more conductive to electricity then the OXIDATION that forms on the Brass Track.
I would say that the Nickle Plated Track is the BEST of both worlds, but is just my opinion. Again I say Good Luck and stay focused, Ron
True, I should have worded it better, but yes I asked for opinions. I was also looking for any facts that may be out there. So, to reword the question.
Facts - which is better for outdoor railroads: Stainless Steel or Nickel Silver. Does anyone have any FACTS, that can be supported, on which rail is better suited for outdoor railroads?
Opinions - which is better for outdoor railroads: Stainless Steel or Nickel Silver. Does anyone have any OPINIONS on which rail is better suited for outdorr railroads?
Is that better tangerine-jack. My comment, "Most people online only post their personal opinions and not the facts", is aimed at other posts. People ask for the FACTS and they only get our OPINIONS. Again, I should have worded the question better.
Snoq. Pass RR wrote:I know that each has its own pros and cons, but which, in your opion, is better for outdoor railroads: Stainless Steel or Nickel Silver.
Snoq, you asked for opinions, not facts. You stated you were already aware of the facts in the first part of your question. In the second part of your question you asked specifically for opinions. Don't get discouraged when you get what you ask for.
Snoq,
I know what you mean, I also get confused about things at times. Back in the early days and before MY time the chrome on CAR BUMPERS and TRIM STRIPS or CAST IRON kitchen or parlor stove was a plating called NICKLE PLATING. I have been told that it contained NO silver due to the high cost of the silver. Hope this helps you understand it a little better. Happy Railroading, Ron
Snoq. Pass RR
Please don't get me wrong, I don't mean to put you off of the LGB Nickle Plated Track. I just wanted you to be aware that in is only Nickle plated. If you do a "SEARCH" as I stated in my last post you will find out that the company that is making it for LGB has been making Nickle Plated Track for 25 years, so they must be doing something right. Again I say Good Luck, Ron
Snoq. Pass RR,
You have not stated what make and type of metal you are now using. If the track that you are looking at is the NEW product LGB then you should be aware that it is NOT Nickel Silver, it is just Nickle Plated. If you do a SEARCH on the different forums you will find many good answers to your questions. Good Luck and Happy Railroading, Ron
Sheesh... the poor guy says he is using battery power, and wants a more realistic look, and all the brass guys come out and talk about different types of brass, and conductivity,and rail joiners.
To answer the original question, I am making the following assumptions: that the rail top is a silvery color, not yellow/brass color, and realistic looks are asked for.
I would make my choice between SS, NS, and aluminum.
On looks alone, I would go with NS, SS is too shiny and bluish in color, and aluminum is too silvery, NS will weather a little darker.
Now, if you were willing to paint the rail and weather it, I would go with SS, because you can weather everything, and then wear/wipe the paint off the rail head as you please.
If cost is an issue, then I think aluminum would be least costly.
If your layout gets stepped on by critters like deer, elk, moose, big dogs, then go SS, because aluminum and NS will bend more easily.
I'm also assuming that since you are going for realism, you will use flex track, or at least long lengths of rails.
Regards, Greg
Visit my site: http://www.elmassian.com - lots of tips on locos, rolling stock and more.
Click here for Greg's web site
iandor wrote:You are quite right not all brass is the same and Aristo has more tin in or is it nickle i can't remember and LGB has more copper and i prefer the one with less copper as it doesn't oxidise as quickly.Rgds ian
You are quite right not all brass is the same and Aristo has more tin in or is it nickle i can't remember and LGB has more copper and i prefer the one with less copper as it doesn't oxidise as quickly.
Rgds ian
Tom Trigg
Snoq. Pass RR wrote:To end this now: I hate Brass, want different rail. Which would be better Nickel Silver or Stainless Steel. By the sounds of it Nickel Silver is better. Is this true?????
if appearance is the deciding factor as you said, try Walt's suggestion of Aluminum. IMO N/S is superior b/c of its ease of bending and soldering. But if shiny railtops is your priority then get SS & paint the sides; the ss tops will give you the best shine for your money
Since you're using battery power, right?, so conductivity isn't an issue therefore I'd use Aluminum track. Paint the sides rust or buy weathered rail. The metal wheels will polish the rail tops nice and shiney and it will look very prototypical. And it will be much cheaper than the other three alternatives.
Walt
I agree Jack there is no right or wrong way to do anything in this hobby; it is only what is best for you.
If your only parameter is that the track is not to be brass, then EITHER nickle-sliver OR stainless will do as clearly neither one is brass. You choose which, since you run battery there will be no difference between NS or stainless.
There is no clearly defined "better" or "worse" in the world of Garden railroads, whatever works for YOU is the correct way to go. Don't like yellow/brown rails? That's OK, get yourself some silver ones and enjoy your railroad.
I have never considered using either but you must have good reason for so doing, this would then probably determine which you should use and what would be best fot you in your situation.
rgds ian
Snoq. Pass RR wrote: I dislike see the goldish color that Brass gives off.
Snoq. Pass RR wrote: I have some Brass track, but would like to move to a more realistic looking track.
Regarding realism, I have decided to only handlay ties where the track will show, which is about 1/2 the area. In the other area, I'm using the plastic ties so that I can put dirt over the ties and grow small weedy plants like thymes, to simulate underutilized rails.
The plastic ties will not be seen below the dirt/ballast/moss mix and there are no worries about them rotting away AND, I don't need to put oil down as wood preservative that might kill the plants. As far as I know, I'm the only one using this particular philosophy. But there could be others.
Realism is a reason i guess but at what cost?
I try and grow stuff between my rails to make things look nore countryish and unused sort off.
It looks good but it causes me problems from time to time though.
If looks are what you're after, you might need to rust paint the sides of the rails and determine in your own mind whether tops of rails look better SS or NS (I'd opt NS).
Also, unless you're using totally sectional track, I'd go NS b/c easier to bend and solder.
I am using RCS only. Track power does not work for me, so I have switched over to battery powered locomotives. I have some Brass track, but would like to move to a more realistic looking track. I work on a railroad, so I see real track almost everyday. When I get home to my layout, I dislike see the goldish color that Brass gives off.
I use brass, and dont plan on switchin any time soon.
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
Why would you depart from brass, do you have pollution problems?
The Home of Articulated Ugliness
Cabbage,
Were do I find PECO SM32?
Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month