Sub-standard track

[underworld]

Here's some Really sub standard track and with steel sleepers.

These are from a rail line in Tierra del Fuego, Argentina

This Y shaped sleeper is in the Hannover Tram Museum

underworld

[Curmudgeon]

I've got some in books of sub-standard railways.

Trust me, that and track-power don't mix!

[underworld]

Tangerine...

Sorry, but I am a Colonial Brat -born in Rhodesia. Steel sleepers were used because termites ate the wood ones. There was no ballast because digging the virgin veldt is so hard... Termite mounds that were in the way were dynamited -it was the easiest way!!!

The last garden railway track that I built and laid was flat to 1/4 inch in 72 feet. The new one will be even flatter!!!

regards

ralph

I've seen concrete sleepers before but not steel, do you have any photos of track with steel sleepers?

underworld

[Mike Dorsch CJ&M r.r.]

You could always let it get overgrown with vegitation like this .

[Anonymous]

Tom

I am working on this abandoned line concept in my own way, getting grass to grow between the tracks and between the sleepers (ties) it is looking better and better all the time but you have to have a careful trim and track clean of that piece of track prior to running anything on it.

Rgds Ian

[S&G Rute of the Silver River]

I'm trying, I also need to buy some batteries off dave fo my 2-6-4T.( former bach 4-6-0)

[Curmudgeon]

Then get Isaac to drag you down here for an ops session.

[S&G Rute of the Silver River]

Sorry, My Name's Patrick. Though I'm a friend of Isaac.

[cabbage]

Tangerine...

Sorry, but I am a Colonial Brat -born in Rhodesia. Steel sleepers were used because termites ate the wood ones. There was no ballast because digging the virgin veldt is so hard... Termite mounds that were in the way were dynamited -it was the easiest way!!!

The last garden railway track that I built and laid was flat to 1/4 inch in 72 feet. The new one will be even flatter!!!

regards

ralph

[ttrigg]

Kstrong hit on a point I was going to mention, in that with the limitations of the modeling world it would be best to build true and straight track and use rough cut ties and other illusions to give the feel of neglect.  The fact is that if your model railroad does not run properly you will not have much fun with it in the long run.  Good luck and post some photos when you get rolling!

He could be trying the hard way to establish and "abandoned line"!!!!!!

[Curmudgeon]

S&G Rute-

 

Hmm. Nothwest Railway Museum.

Isaac has a handle already.......could this be Mike?

You ever come down for an ops session? You can see why we do what we do. Try it.

First and third Fridays.

Just down the hill a bit.

E-mail me.

TOC

[tangerine-jack]

I hav a hie skool edjukashun and I kin lay trak strate wit no hlep.

 

Ralph, I've been to the UK and I think I've ridden over some of the track of which you speak.  My kidneys will never be the same...............

 

Kstrong hit on a point I was going to mention, in that with the limitations of the modeling world it would be best to build true and straight track and use rough cut ties and other illusions to give the feel of neglect.  The fact is that if your model railroad does not run properly you will not have much fun with it in the long run.  Good luck and post some photos when you get rolling!

[S&G Rute of the Silver River]

OK, OK, ok. I'll go to at least 215. Why? Ever sence I saw Mt. Rainer Senic's shay going over the runnaround (some of the worst track I've ever seen and I work at NWRM but were getting better) I was hooked. watchin the trucks struggle to stay under the locomotive, perfict logging line, layed rough tuff, and by people devoid of a high school eduication 

[Anonymous]

S and G mate, i wouldn't do it amd i cant understand why anyone would want to do it!

Rgds Ian

[cabbage]

Having grown up in a part of the world were tracklaying was not practised as a discipline -but more of a "paid per hour" method, perhaps it might help you to hear what it was really like...

First the Head Ganger would stretch a piece of string (or wire) from the last laid piece of track (about 33 feet long) and then look down the length of the laid track and try and pull his piece of string taught in the same direction as the existing track. Then he put a rock on the string. Folded steel sleepers would then be laid on the string and kicked to the right position (about a step apart). Long spikes would hold the sleeper to the ground. (What's ballast?) Then chairs would be bolted to the sleepers the rail laid on and secured to the cast iron chairs by knocking wooden wedges into the gaps. If there was less than 1 inch between the string and the centre of the track -then it was "True".

This is the horrible reality of building a railway track. Rivet counters exist in perfect fantasy world -I even saw a post asking what the nails should look like -the answer is simple -like they have been hit by a 7 pound sledgehammer by two workers SEVERAL TIMES!!!

Anyway, that is track laying as practiced in my youth. I have been informed that modern track laying is not of as high a quality....

regards

ralph

PS -the track would be about code 250 in 16mm scale

[Curmudgeon]

Uh, yes, this is, well, I can't tell you what it is as it would violate the rules.

 

Minimum railhead height for stock wheelsets is about double that, or 205-215.

I have seen inverted dimple flanges work on 148 rails.

 In other words, no.

 

[kstrong]

If you're working in large scale, code 100 track will be far too small. It's smaller than the flanges on the equipment, so your cars will be bouncing on the ties. (That's only 2" tall rail in 1:20, or 3" in 1:29). The smallest rail I've heard being used successfully for something like that is code 148 (or thereabouts) and then, the flanges were turned down. Code 197 is the smallest I've heard of being used without having to modify the wheels.

Having said that--no mater which size rail you use to represent a substandard track, you're going to need to do a few things. First, your trucks are going to have to be either sprung or equalized, so that all 4 wheels will stay in contact with the rail as the car moves over them. Where you're going to run into trouble is with locomotives, many of which don't have this ability. You'll have to stick with very short-wheelbase locos to minimize the chances of derailment over the uneven rail.

I wouldn't worry too much about the couplers, but I'd certainly want to use something on the larger side to give me the most vertical play. Bachmann, AMS, or Kadee G scale couplers would be my first choice. If it's an industrial type of line, then you could go with link-and-pin couplers. The amount of variation you can have between couplers is equal only to the height of the coupler, so if you're using Aristo, USA, or Kadee #1, don't get too carried away.

I don't know that you need to do too much warping and bending to get the effect you're looking for. I've seen railroads laid with very rustic looking track that's actually pretty darned even, but because of the look of the rail, ties, and the vegetation growing around and over it, you think it's been neglected for centuries. A few minor bends here and there would most likely be quite sufficient.

Later,

K

[S&G Rute of the Silver River]

I am building sub standard track, code 100 on very few ties so the track warps and bends in true fassion. (I'm not constructing BNSF mainline) What will that do to my rollingstock, do I need to mount the cupplers differnt to have vertical and horzontel travel? Are there any effects that make this a terable idea.