I understand the relationship between model rail height(code) and scale, i.e. code 100 rail is .100 inches tall, which would represent a rail that is 4.80 inches tall in O Scale, or 8.70 inches tall in HO. I also realize that in the prototype, rail is measured by pounds. My question is how tall is rail in relationship to its weight, and what weight rail would have been prototypical for a 1939 mainline railroad? Would there be a difference if it was narrow gauge? I have tried to use the search engine, but not having much luck. Any help you may offer is greatly appreciated.
http://www.icrr.net/rails.htm
A rather exhaustive compilation of rail sizes, grouped by railroads which used/originated them.
In HO, Code 100 is oversize for anything ever laid as railroad rail (PRR 155# would be code 93.)
By 1939 the heavy-traffic Eastern roads were using rail in the 120#-133# range (PRR only used monster-rail on a few thousand feet of track on the Horseshoe Curve.) Code 83 is a good equivalent in HO.
Granger railroads were still running on 100#-115# rail, which in HO is code 70. The same rail could be found on yard and other less-used track on every railroad, even PRR and N&W.
Industrial spurs could be laid with very light rail, but would be embargoed to all but the lightest locomotives. I once (1950s) found a spur to a small-town lumber yard on NYCs West Shore route. Next to the switch stand on the main was a sign listing all the classes of locomotives that were NOT to use the spur - about 90% of the NYCs steam fleet. Farther along, but still short of the lumber yard, was another sign - No Locomotives Beyond This Point. When I stomped down some of the waist-high weeds I found the last transition joiners, which joined 75# rail to some well-used 60# rail.
Narrow gauge railroads, with few exceptions, were laid with much lighter rail (RGS was originally laid with 30# rail.) Many, built before the turn of the 20th century, were never profitable enough to justify upgrading. IIRC, the Cumbres and Toltec is curently running on 65# relay rail - very heavy by Colorado Narrow Gauge standards.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
That's an interesting webpage, but it fails my high-standard 'litmus test' for such compilations - it doesn't have the Lehigh Valley's 3 versions/sections of 136 lb. rails . . .
The rail weight is almost always expressed in 'nominal' lbs. of weight per yard of length.
As you may have noticed by now, the height is not proportional to that weight - a rail with a large increase in weight is only a little bit higher than a lighter one. Example:100 lb. AREA/ AREMA section - 10025 - rails are 6'' high, but 132 lb. AREA/ AREMA section - 13228 - rails are 7-1/8'' = 7.125'' high. So a rail that is 32 lbs. = 32 % heavier is only 18.8 % taller [1-1/8'' = 1.125'' / 6.00''].
For 1939, the appropriate weight/ height for a mainline will also depend on which railroad, and where. The 130 - 140 lb. sections would be appropriate for Eastern US main lines, esp. in the coal and iron ore regions - Code 83 = 0.083'' high is fine for those. I'm not that familiar with the western roads back then, but I believe that an 85, 90, or 100 lb. section would not be out-of-line for some of the more-lightly trafficked mains back then - those would be common branch-line or also secondary main line sections in the East, such as up in New England. Code 70 = 0.070'' high is 6.1'' for HO scale, which is a little high for those; a code 60 = 0.60'' high or 65 = 0.065'' high would be better, if such a thing is made. Likewise, I'm not familiar with the Colorado narrow-gauges - I'll have to look closely at the East Broad Top in central Pennsylvania next time I'm there - but a rail weight of 50 to 60 lbs. would be typical, and as Chuck say, about 70 lbs. max. Code 55 rail = 0.055'' high = 4.8'' in HO scale, which would be close for the heavier weights there; Code 40 = 0.040'' high = 3.5'' is about 40 lb. rail in HO.
- Paul North.
if you go to the dot web site and look at the railway accident reports, many of them include information regarding rail size, tie spacing and other track construction information. the reports are indexed by date from 1911 up into the '90s and are listed by railroad.
grizlump
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?websearch&site=dot_railroads
Here they are for 1939:
Paul,
All your links take us to the DOT Special Collections Main page and not to the individual railroads cited.
Dan
This page might help http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRrailsizes.html
Enjoy
Paul