I need to get track and ONE turnout for a diorama that I'm building. Since the diorama is small, I want to handlay everything that I can, as it would take like half an hour to an hour to lay cork and then flextrack on top of it (excluding dry time for the glue). Follow that by a few weekends (or so) of ballast and other scenery, and I'll (hopefully) have a nice-looking diorama.
Thats all well and good but since I have little space for everything, I want to take the "long" route and make this as detailed as possible. The diorama wil essentially be for display of my locos and a few cars, so I will be taking a lot of closeup shots.
I'm going to use c70 rail, as this apparently is the closest to the 90 pound per yard rail that would have been used in steam servicing yards around the early-mid 1940's. Would I do beter to buy the proto87 rail "kits" (100' of rail and plastic "flextrack" ties) or to buy c70 rail and ties from somewhere else and just get the proto87 tieplates/fishplates?
Here's a pic of the diorama:
It's a little off, as the table itself is closer to 40" on each side, but the general design is still the same.
Dark Blue tracks are a 3-stall RH
Rust tracks are outside storage (parts cars, wreck train, etc)
Green tracks on the lower right (and along the bottom) connect to the "rest of the yard"
Teal/ Blue-green tracks may ormay not exist, they'dbe the TT lead(s) or tracks going off "to the backshop" or something.
The line drawing in the lower right MAY be where I put a coaling tower, though the trackage there is still slightly up in the air (I'm not entirely sure I like it as-is, might get reworked to be a good place for photos or something)
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
This is the Central Valley stuff. They sell main line tie strips and branch line strips. You can buy these seperately without rail. I used a code 81 rail in these pics. I think CV gets that from Proto. The Proto ties and turnouts are made by Central Valley. They come with nice details that you can add. (switch stands, tie bars,)Track on left is branch line, right is main. (note tie spacing)Proto sells real nice cast frogs too. The one in this pic is the CV stock frog that comes with the kit.http://www.CVMW.com/I really like the stuff. It's EZ to lay. Self gauging. If I had a climate controlled building, I would have used it on my whole layout.
PS-The CV turnout kits come with very nicely detailed guide rails but I didn't use those in the above picture.
loathar,
that looks really great ! I would assume that I should get the "branchline" tie strips, as this will be a yard/servicing facility diorama.
Now it's not really apparent in your pictures, but in the shots that Central Valley had on their website I could still pick out that the ties were black plastic (bleh). It might be any of a million factors, but seeing that in the photos kind of turns me off to using the plastic strips. Also, I'm not 100% sure from the photos or the descrpitions as to how the rail gets held to the ties. did you need to glue it or do you just spike it when you have it in place?
http://www.cvmw.com/bargeletter.htm
This is from the CV web site. They recommend Barge contact cement. You can also use spikes like hand laying. (or a combination of both) I talked to the owner and he said the Barge has held his track down on his layout for 20 years with no problem. The plastic tie strips have very fine detail and look MUCH better than Atlas or Peco plastic ties. I painted mine with a spray can so it's a little thick and hid some of those details. I just used super glue to hold my rail down because it's just a diorama.If you hand lay wood ties, your not going to have the tie plate detail unless you use the Proto87 tie plates and place them all one at a time by hand. I wouldn't have the patients for that. Nice thing about the Central Valley product is you don't need any special tools for it. (not even a track gauge) A file and rail saw or nippers is all it takes. You can cut the webbing on the tie strips to set some ties at odd angles to look less uniform.
Give the owner a call. I talked to him and he sent me a #6 turnout kit and a few of each tie strip for free. They sell their turnout detail kit separately if you decide to go with the hand laid stuff. It really dresses up the turnout.
144 views later and noone else has added their opinions about this...
So either you guys who have loads of hand-laying knowledge haven't gotten around to answering, or the only options are the CV tie strips or the wood ties and Proto87 tie plates....
And thanks for the info Loathar. If all goes well, I'll have some pictures to show off sometime in the next few weeks.
Since you had only two options, I don't do proto87, but do handlay, I have no opinion.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I'll offer another opinion.
First a question: How is this scene presented to the viewer? If it is at eye level then some of the detail may be noticed. If it is viewed from above, then most of the detail will be missed. You will definately see it in up close photos.
I think a happy meduim between time spent and great detail is Micro Engineering flextrack. I think it looks as good as CV and better than non P87 handlaid. The bonus is that there is no assembly time. Handlaying with tieplates would seem to be overkill in my book. In most engine facilities the ballast/ground covers up most of the ties anyway. You might want to spend your time on detailing the rolling stock, buildings and other aspects of the scene rather than spending time on barely noticeable track details.......
If you want to experiment with handlaying then I think getting some wood ties and rail would be the way to go. You can also try the scale spike and tieplates from P87. Remember that the spikes must be removed from the sprue. Personally I haven't the patience for that but then again everyone makes their choices in the hobby. I would also go with code 55. Many yards had old light rail on sidings left over from the earlier eras....I think it will give you more of the look you are after.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Dave,
I take it from your comment that I should hand-lay the track, though you have no opinion regarding proto87 or other “super” detail trackwork, correct? Thanks for the vote of confidence toward handlaid track .
Guy,
The scene will be pretty much “eye level”. It’s about 4-6” below eye level sitting in my office/desk rolling chair, which is where I will be primarily viewing it. Now, other people will probably just stand and take a look at it and say “that’s nice” and move on, so having the detail work or not wouldn’t matter, to them anyway. However, I am going to use this as the scene for taking photos, so I would like the detail to be there.
While the flextrack would be a good way to go if I wanted to save time, it will actually be a “downside” for me. I’m working with this very limited space (for the time being), and once something is done, it’s done. I could always fiddle with it a little here and there, but there’s only so much detail work that one can do to the flextrack. I would never dream of handlaying an entire basement empire, though I think this would benefit from that “personal touch.”
As for using code 55, there are two red flags that this throws for me:
If you are going to do proto87 track work (which implies using prototype (AAR) track standards instead of NMRA track standards) then you need to use proto87 wheelsets on your cars and turn your engine wheels to proto87 standards. Theoretically a NMRA wheelset won't go through a proto87 turnout.
If you are truly using proto87 standards then flanges and code 55 won't be a problem since proto87 flanges are way smaller than NMRA flanges.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that for me Dave.
Now, if I was to go with Proto87 track and wheels, would I be able to run said locomotives and cars on trackwork NMRA standards? or is it a one or the other type thing?
edit: Nevermind that last question, I found the answer on the proto87 website (took a little extra digging though). Looks like working out everything to be completely proto87 would be a bad idea (would make it really hard to run on the club layout). Kind of a shame though, I bet it would look really good. Guess I'll have to go with the c70 rail so I can stick with RP25 wheels.
dehusman wrote: you need to use proto87 wheelsets on your cars and turn your engine wheels to proto87 standards. Theoretically a NMRA wheelset won't go through a proto87 turnout.
you need to use proto87 wheelsets on your cars and turn your engine wheels to proto87 standards. Theoretically a NMRA wheelset won't go through a proto87 turnout.
I believe that Dave has a point here regarding P87 turnouts. You will be fine with RP 25 on the plain track, however. You might use their standard HO (RP-25) materials for the turnout.
Interesting that you are looking at making this project take longer!!! I don't believe I have ever heard of this in the hobby :-) I've got some kits for you to build if you run out of things to model......
On the code 55 rail, I think you're fine in terms of the engines being supported on it. If you use proto 87 spikes there shouldn't be a problem with flanges bottoming out on the spike heads....Of course this presuming RP 25 standards on the Loco.
As far as details and taking your time might I direct you to this site:
http://www.riograndemodels.com/HO.htm
These kits are unique, gorgeous and take a while to build. You could have some of this stuff sitting on sidings.
trainnut1250 wrote:Interesting that you are looking at making this project take longer!!! I don't believe I have ever heard of this in the hobby :-) I've got some kits for you to build if you run out of things to model......As far as details and taking your time might I direct you to this site:http://www.riograndemodels.com/HO.htm
I want this to take longer because when it's done, I'll be stuck without anything to do really. I'm currently still in college, so I don't have any room to have a move-/hide-able table or shelf layout. So I figure the best way to get the "most" out of this diorama is to take the "long" route -- not that any of the RTR(ish) products are bad in any way.
I like the stuff on that site maybe some of it will find it's way over to my diorama.... I especially like the overhead pulley drive system, maybe that could make its way into a roundhouse or something at some point...
NeO6874 wrote: trainnut1250 wrote:Interesting that you are looking at making this project take longer!!! I don't believe I have ever heard of this in the hobby :-) I've got some kits for you to build if you run out of things to model......As far as details and taking your time might I direct you to this site:http://www.riograndemodels.com/HO.htm I like the stuff on that site maybe some of it will find it's way over to my diorama.... I especially like the overhead pulley drive system, maybe that could make its way into a roundhouse or something at some point...
Funny you should say that. I just ordered abunch of his stuff for my engine house......
NeO6874 wrote: Now, if I was to go with Proto87 track and wheels, would I be able to run said locomotives and cars on trackwork NMRA standards? or is it a one or the other type thing?
The other alternative is to superdetail the track. Put down all the tieplates and other stuff and use NMRA standards for switches, etc.
That's why I was asking about whether you meant Proto87 standards or Proto87 the company that makes track details. You can use Proto87 Co. track details with NMRA standards. His tieplates are meant to glued down and the rail is glued also. So theoretically you could use code 40 rail if you wanted
The critical difference between Proto87 and NMRA standards are the dimensions around the wheels, the tread widthm the wheel thickness and the flange thickness.
ah, i misunderstood your question/comment then.
After looking at the two standards, I am going to superdetail the (NMRA-standard) trackwork - either with the Proto87 stuff or CV stuff. I think it would be too much of a hassle to go straight proto87, especially since I want to run things on a NMRA-standards club layout. Maybe sometime in the future, when I have my own basement empire I'll look into running proto87....
From what you guys have said, there seems to be no real difference between proto87 or CVT as far as running capabilities or looks (well, after weathering/painting). I guess this is going to have to come down to which company can get me better pricing on the stuff...
As for the rail code, I think I'm going to stick with c70, as even though the c55 would be glued down, I am worried that the flanges would still hit the tieplate/spike details of either the Proto87 stuff or the CV tie strips.
The superdetailed "Proto87 stuff" is etched metal tie plates that are superglued to wood ties and then the rail is glued to them.
The plastic tie stuff is Central Valley tie strips with metal castings for the frog and points. If you look at the picture on the Proto87 "Fast and Easy" track page and at the Central Valley tie strip on thier web site you will see its the SAME picture. The only difference is the frog and point castings.
So you regardless of CV or Proto87 you will be using the SAME tie strips. Proto87 packages the CV tiestrips with Proto87 castings.
That's why I thought you were talking about something else, the superdetailed Proto87 products which use an etched metal positioning jig to glue scale individual tie plates to the wood ties and them rail and castings are applied to that.
NeO6874 wrote: As for the rail code, I think I'm going to stick with c70, as even though the c55 would be glued down, I am worried that the flanges would still hit the tieplate/spike details of either the Proto87 stuff or the CV tie strips.
There will be no difference between code 55 and code 70 for flange strikes of spike heads and details. The RP25 flanges are not much deeper than scale, but the flanges are thicker, and the wheel treads are way wider than scale. Anything that will run on code 70 will run on code 55 if your spike heads are less than twice scale size - even Micro Engineering micro spikes will work for code 55. Deep flanges (older Rivarossi, IHC, AHM and the like that are not RP25 compliant) will have spike head strikes on both code 70 and code 55. Some will even have problems on code 83 track. Bottom line: flange strikes are not a good reason to favor one rail size over the other when going smaller than code 83 in HO.
From an appearance perspective, remember that the rail code only specifies its height. Most model rail is somewhat thicker through the head than a strict scaling would dictate. The web is substantially thicker and the rail base on model rail is usually slightly higher. Scale accuracies in rail cross sections are very difficult to achieve in both manufacturing and providing adequate strength for handling, especially in the smaller rail codes. If you are looking from above (a common viewpoint in the model world), the rail head thickness should drive rail selection. If you are looking close to eye level (less than 1" above the track in HO for true eye level) than the vertical height should be the driver.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I didn't know that. I know that the RP-25 stuff is small, just didn't realize HOW small it is -- I only have c100 track right now ( EZ track so I can have an oval to run on the floor...). Perhaps I'll go for the c55 then. Track (and scene) dominated by steam locos seems like a good idea to me....
I also ran across Joe Fugate's turnout building with CVT tiestrips, and they look pretty good (much better than the pictures on the CV website)... but they're still plastic.
Looks like I'm gouing to have to be finding RP-25 wheels to replace some of the piza cutters I have, or learn how to turn the flanges down..... yet another reason to wish for that mini lathe from micro-mark.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all the newer metal wheelsets like Kadee, P2K and Intermountain are all RP-25.(I think) If your going for detail, the Proto 87's are going to look the best but they ain't cheap.
The code 81 rail from CV is supposed to have a prototypical profile. You can't really see the difference between that and the code 83 when they're side by side without a magnifying glass.
Could you post a link to Joe's CV turnout page? I'd like to see what he's done with them.
Loathar - you're correct in that all newer wheelsets are RP25, though I have older locos that I can't (as of yet) find RP-25 replacements for (mainly the lead/trailing truck and tender wheels, the drivers are all pretty close to the RP 25 size). I'd kill for teh proto87 detail and correct sizing, but then I can't run them through NMRA spec'd turnouts (though I could be misreading the differences)
While technically to HO scale, PROTO:87 wheels are constructed to close to prototype tire width, flange depth and back to back dimensions. As such they will only operate successfully on trackwork built to PROTO:87 (near true flangeway) standards. We also expect customers to be able to measure and if necessary, adjust the Back to Back settings for wheelsets. A dial caliper tool or one of our gauges are suitable for this purpose. If in any doubt, please call/email first for more information.
I'm gonna send an email over to the Proto87 store and see what they say, and go from there...
Here's the link to Joe's CVT turnout test: http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?5125
Did you check Bowser for the steam wheels you need? I don't know if they are RP-25 or not.http://www.bowser-trains.com/hoother/Partref1.pdf
NWSL sells diesel wheels in RP 25.(thanks for the link!)
thanks for that link Loathar. Guess I'm going to have to call bowser and find out (or do a lot of filing...).