Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Super elevation on s curves?

2280 views
36 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Grew up in Calif, left in 84, now in Virginia
  • 7,303 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Friday, August 23, 2019 12:21 PM

doctorwayne
doctorwayne wrote the following post yesterday:

Yeah, but once I get the landforms for the scenery in place, it'll halve the risk.  I finally have the material on-hand, just need to find time to put it in place.

I resisted running trains until enough things like scenery was in place or other safeguards.  In some cases, a scenery shell may not be such that will block rolling stock from going over, depending on the terrain and landscape.

From the photos in your post in the "Close to the Edge" thread in General Discussion, it looks as if you've got all the safety measures needed using the same excellent scenery method that Rob Spangler uses.

I do not on Rob's layout, there appeared to be areas that rolling stock could dive off the edge.  As far as scenery methods, I like to follow much of what Rob does because of a couple of reasons, it looks nice and it is somewhat similar (vegetation wise) to parts of the D&RGW on the west end.  And D&RGW and WP interchanged freight trains too.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 10,198 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:06 AM

riogrande5761
Eek, no guard rails and a long drop adjacent to the track. You are much braver than I.

Yeah, but once I get the landforms for the scenery in place, it'll halve the risk.  I finally have the material on-hand, just need to find time to put it in place.

riogrande5761
....If my track is near the edge, I try to create some sort of barrier to prevent trains from going over the edge, either by landscape or a wall using hardbard (yard).....

From the photos in your post in the "Close to the Edge" thread in General Discussion, it looks as if you've got all the safety measures needed using the same excellent scenery method that Rob Spangler uses.

In my case, I lost much of my semi-planned layout room (about 1200 sq.ft.) to "other family considerations", resulting in a "what-will-fit-in-this-space?"....

...type of layout.

The peninsula between South Cayuga and the town now above Elfrida was the best way to add a partial second level, with the close-to-the-edge-track the method to gain the needed height.

In use, it's not all that scary, as train speed is quite low (the grade, uncompensated, is 2.8%) and I use a walk-around throttle so that I can follow alongside the loco(s). 

It's also my opinion that pretty-well anything used on the layout can be repaired.

The only incident of any consequence on that track occurred on the high bridge in the photo below...

It's near the start of the grade, on the outskirts of South Cayuga, and involved a fairly long train - perhaps 40 or 50 cars...much more than is usual.  As far as I could tell, a low coupler caught on something, perhaps the guardrail on the bridge, causing some of the cars between it and the locos to stringline.

Here's the aftermath...

Clean-up and repairs were quickly accomplished and the train re-run, just to ensure it could be done safely.  At that time, the partial upper level hadn't been built, so the train had to stop at the top of the grade, then back down.

Wayne

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Grew up in Calif, left in 84, now in Virginia
  • 7,303 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Thursday, August 22, 2019 7:36 AM

doctorwayne

 

 

 

Eek, no guard rails and a long drop adjacent to the track.  You are much braver than I.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 9,645 posts
Posted by dehusman on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 4:08 PM

The superelevation is a fixed amount, its set for one speed.

The trains may be going different speeds.  A piggyback or perishable train might have a top speed of 70 mph, a regular freight train 60 mph and a coal train 50 mph.  Whatever speed you pick it will be non-optimal for some or all of them.  Somebody's going to have to brake to go through the curve or will be going through slower than the superelevation speed.  Any way you cut it, its going to cost time, fuel, and extra wear on brakes or rail on some of the trains.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 2,825 posts
Posted by gregc on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:50 PM

rrinker
And as a couple of real railroaders are sayiong - stopping the train short of striking another train is WAY WAY further up the priority list than any extra difficulty of starting it on a curve.

airplanes are expected to land on a runway, but are designed to land on farm fields (at least general aviation aircrafts).  of course you don't design trains to only do what is expected. 

rrinker
I'd postulate there's more side thrust on the axle bearings than there is on the flange against the inside rail.

forces need to balance

rrinker
so the force of a flange against the rail should be minimal, if it even strikes the rail.

is "minimal" less than typical rolling resistance (2.3lb/ton at 10mph)?

i think the force is proportional to the elevation / Gauge.   Then you need to account for the coef of friction of steel on steel (~25%).  

 

 

Since a train traversing a heavily superelevated curve at a relatively slow speed tends to cause excessive wear on the low rail, many railroads reduced curve superelevation when their passenger trains disappeared. This practice has worked against the reinstatement or speeding up of passenger service. 

sounds like it's undersirable to run slow or stop on superelevated curves, but not unexpected.

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,314 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 12:10 PM

 Part of what flange greasers are for.

And as a couple of real railroaders are sayiong - stopping the train short of striking another train is WAY WAY further up the priority list than any extra difficulty of starting it on a curve.

With exaggerated superelevation and far tighter than typical prototype curves in our models, it's far more likely for models to have issues starting on curves. However, saying that, short of REALLY coars handling of the throttle or sudden power failures and then having the power come back on before being able to turn the throttle down, I have never had a problem with stringlining trains starting them on curves, even with light (under NMRA weight) cars in the middle. 

 The tilt to the track makes the cars want to slide down the hill, but the conical section of the wheels makes this also need to lift the car to happen - I'd postulate there's more side thrust on the axle bearings than there is on the flange against the inside rail. Picturing it in your head, and also photos taken with long lenses, make the real track seem to curve much sharper than it really is. On a rela mainline curve, it's unlikley you can even see the deflection over a typical truck wheelbase - probably not even over a full car length, so the force of a flange against the rail should be minimal, if it even strikes the rail. On a really tight cirve on a siding, where it might evn be difficult to push a single car due to coupler swing issues, there the rails may be curved so sharply that the flanges are rubbing the inside of the rail.

                              --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 2,825 posts
Posted by gregc on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:06 PM

Don't flanges rubbing create additional resistance?   doesn't this cost fuel if every wheel on a long freight train is rubbing?   

isn't it more diffcult to get a long train started if the flanges are rubbing?

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 9,645 posts
Posted by dehusman on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:50 PM

gregc
wouldn't running at less than the correct speed for the amount of elevation, allowing the flange to rub the inside rail of the curve be something to avoid (or at least minimize)?

Its not a huge concern.  The reasons trains aren't running the speed the superevelvation are either for cost or safety.  Even if you added millions of dollars of engines to increase the speed there would still be slow orders, speed restrictions, approach signals and speed restricted cars.  If the trains hit the speed great, if they don't the rail wear is not the largest of the concerns.  If the train has an approach signal, I don't really care what the rail wear is, I want the train to reduce speed and be prepared to stop at the next signal.

Its also possible to have one train on multiple curves with multiple degrees of curvature and multiple speeds, the train will travel the lowest speed.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,191 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:23 PM

gregc
wouldn't running at less than the correct speed for the amount of elevation, allowing the flange to rub the inside rail of the curve be something to avoid (or at least minimize)?

Some curves are equipped with flange greasers before the start of the curve.This is to cut down on the rub of the flange  against the rail. It also lowers the flange squeal.

Larry

SSRy

Conductor

“Shut one’s eyes tight or open one’s arms wide, either way, one’s a fool.” Flemeth-the witch of the Wilds.
  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 2,825 posts
Posted by gregc on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:56 PM

dehusman
When moving at less than balance speed, the forces aren't equal.  In that case the horizontal force caused by the tilt will cause the cars to move towards the center and rub the inside rail of the curve.

wouldn't running at less than the correct speed for the amount of elevation, allowing the flange to rub the inside rail of the curve be something to avoid (or at least minimize)?

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 9,645 posts
Posted by dehusman on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:06 PM

gregc
The centrifugal force depends on the speed. They are only equal at one speed!

True.  And trains in most likelihood would be operating at less than the superevelvated speed.  If there are passenger trains, the speed would be balanced for the passenger speeds, for passenger comfort. Which means that all freight trains would be operating at less than the balance speed and since most freight trains operate at less than track speed, freight trains would be operating way less than balance speed.

There is no force applied by the outside rail.

Tilting something causes it to want to "fall" in the direction its tilted.  It has a horizontal component towards the center.  Going around a curve there is a force that wants to keep the motion in a straight line.  It has a horizontal component away from the center.  By tilting the track the horizontal force trying to make the car fall toward the center can offset the force trying to make the object move in a straight line away from center.

If you tie a string to a ball and swing it around, the ball will want to move in a straight line, with an outward force, and thus pull on the string, keeping it taut. The string will apply a force inward and keep it going in a circle.  If you cut the string at the ball, the ball will move in a straight line, because there is no inward force from the string.  The string will go limp because there is no outward force from the ball.

gregc
so when stopped, they at not equal and the force pulling the train inward dominates and flanges rub.

When moving at less than balance speed, the forces aren't equal.  In that case the horizontal force caused by the tilt will cause the cars to move towards the center and rub the inside rail of the curve.  If there is no superelevation then the force trying to make the train move in a straight line would be there and the cars would rub the outside rail.  Its not necessarily the force "pulling the train" that makes it move toward the inside rail its gravity.  If there was no superevelvation in the curve, the train moving through the curve would go tothe outside rail.  That works whether its a car being pulled or you just roll a car free (not being pulled). 

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 2,825 posts
Posted by gregc on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:22 AM

selector
I'm probably not entirely correct, certainly not using correct engineering/physics terms, but that's the gist of it for our purposes.

thanks for the science lesson.   yea i guess its centrifugal

did you read the link i posted earlier

gregc
Fundamentals of Railway Curve Superelevation provides a detailed explanation of the physics and math behind the values for superelevation along with a tables of values.

as I said, the elevated outside rail provides a force to pull the train toward the inside of the curve.   The centrifugal force results in an apparent force toward the outside of the curve.

the inward force depends on the weight of the train.   The centrifugal force depends on the speed.   They are only equal at one speed!

so when stopped, they at not equal and the force pulling the train inward dominates and flanges rub.

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 21,919 posts
Posted by selector on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:28 AM

Greg, it would be 'centrifugal' force if anything.  Think of it this way: an object in motion stays in motion.  Also, they don't change direction.  If you push something on a rail, it will keep going if it's in good running order and if the rails are level, or on a down grade.  Now put the rail car in space.  You push it and it keeps going.  It is going to follow a curved path, but only due to gravity.  If we place the item well away from the nearest large mass, it will still follow a curved path in space, but much less curved.  If there were no gravity to deal with anywhere, the item would move in a straight line.  In our real world, rails curve at the ends of tangents.  But the car wants to continue straight, to follow a tangential path all along the curve.  The wheel profile, the track head's profile, and /or flanges keep it on the rails, but it really wants to go 'outwards', or tangentially on that curve.  That comprises a centrifugal force, not a centripetal one.

The super neutralizes that tendency to want to wander outward along the curve, something that would cause the flanges to abut up against the flange face of the rail head and squeal...and wear. The super incline makes the car want to continue to follow the curve more evenly by moving the centre of gravity inward and adding a 'tug' down the radius of the curve toward the pivot point, wherever it is. You have called it 'falling' inward, and that's not a bad way of looking at it.  But it's the centrifugal force we wish to couneract, not centripetal.  The latter is what we add to balance the forces to the exent possible when we build in super-elevation.

I'm probably not entirely correct, certainly not using correct engineering/physics terms, but that's the gist of it for our purposes.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,314 posts
Posted by rrinker on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:21 AM

 I'm sure the calculations can be done, and it will vary based on the type of car and how it's loaded, but I doubt very mouch that the superelevation puts more of the weight, or the center of gravity at any rate, of the car outside of the inside (lower) rail - otherwise the car would just tip over. Since there's still plenty of the car's mass pushing down against the rail, I'd think the conic section of the wheels will keep the flanges off the rails. The purpose of superelevation is to lower the CG relative to the outside rail, reducing the tendency to roll to the outside of the track. On a passenger train it helps keep the passengers from feeling liek they're being flung agaisnt the outside side of the car, but superelevation alone is not enough for the high speed trains, that's why they often have tilting systems to actually tilt the cars, further than would be safe to do via superelevation alone. 

                                       --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 2,825 posts
Posted by gregc on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:03 AM

dehusman
There are absolutely no restrictions on having signals that could require a stop on a curve

my understanding is that superelevation balances the centripetal force causing a train to go straight when on a curve with the elevated outside rail that causes the train to "fall" toward the center of a curve.   This allows the wheels to ride between the rail, as they do normally without flanges contacting the rail.

so my take is if a train is operating at less than the speed the superelevated curve it is designed for, flanges will rub against the inside rail.  And this results in extra friction when a train starts from a stop until it gets to the speed the curve is designed for.

again, while this may be less of an issue for a relatively short passenger train and perhaps unavoiadable in urban areas, i think it would be more of a problem for a long frieight train.

of course it can't be prevented.  I'm suggesting it is undesirable.

 

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 9,645 posts
Posted by dehusman on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:47 AM

gregc
i don't travel on freight trains i think stopping on curve may be less of a problem on relatively short passenger trains. Of course, subways have a different set of rules.

Obviously.  There are absolutely no restrictions on stopping on a curve.  There are absolutely no restrictions on having signals that could require a stop on a curve (other than sight distance but that has nothing to do with what you are implying).  There is no attempt to put signals on straight track.  In 37 years of railroading, I never saw a derailment merely because a train stopped on a curve.

Its not an issue.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,191 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 8:51 AM

BNSF UP and others modeler
plan to have an s curve on my layout a bit ahead of some super elevated curves. But then I realized that might not be prototypical/safe on the prototype to have trains flying straight from super elevatated trackage into an s curve. Would they super elevate the s curve too? Or would trains HAVE to slow down...

From my railroad experience every curve has a speed restriction..You don't fly into a curve.  

Larry

SSRy

Conductor

“Shut one’s eyes tight or open one’s arms wide, either way, one’s a fool.” Flemeth-the witch of the Wilds.
  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 2,825 posts
Posted by gregc on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:04 AM

gregc
That prototypical signals requiring a train to stop would always be on straight section of track (at least for freight service). 

dehusman
You have obviously never traveled very much on a real train.

i don't travel on freight trains

i think stopping on curve may be less of a problem on relatively short passenger trains.   Of course, subways have a different set of rules.

selector
Did you mean 'centripetal?'  And there's no requirement for any super on any curve in our scale models.

yes (at least I didn't say centrifugal).

i was curious if there were scaled values that made any sense.

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 21,919 posts
Posted by selector on Monday, August 19, 2019 11:54 PM

gregc said: "... The centrapedal forces depends on velocity squared.   a max 1/64" (0.017) is required on a 19" radius going a scaled 70 mph..."

Did you mean 'centripetal?'  And there's no requirement for any super on any curve in our scale models.  The super, if we have it at all, is entirely for aesthetic reasons, as you guessed in your last post.

Here is a photo I took at the Bonaparte River 700 yards east of Ashcroft, BC, on CN's main in the Thompson River Valley.  The curve continued behind me for about 200 meters.

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 9,645 posts
Posted by dehusman on Monday, August 19, 2019 9:59 PM

gregc
That prototypical signals requiring a train to stop would always be on straight section of track (at least for freight service).

Say what?

You have obviously never traveled very much on a real train.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 10,198 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Monday, August 19, 2019 7:12 PM

gregc
...curious how you came up with 0.047"?....

Well. that's the measurement I got a few minutes before posting that entry.

When I originally decided to add superelevation, I actually did put a train on those curves, then marked and tilted the risers beneath the subroadbed until it looked good to me - a purely subjective decision, not at all based on mathematical formulae or on prototypical practices.

gregc
....so it appears easements and superelevation are for purely aesthetic reasons on model railroads....

Yup!  If we really required superelevation on our layouts, I'm guessing that speeds would be quite a bit faster than what I'm running.

While most of my curves are superelevated, that long, multi-curve grade shown has an upbound speed limit of 35mph for freights and 45mph for passenger trains.  In reality, only a light engine move or a very short train  would be able to sustain those speeds for the entire 45' (3/4 of an HO mile) to the top.  Instead, the thought is that a train will enter that grade at the posted limit if the engineer has any hope of making it to the top without either a helper or having to double the hill. 

The downbound trains are limited to 20mph for freights, 25mph for passenger trains.  Since passenger trains are seldom more than four or five cars, controlling speed isn't all that difficult. 
However, downbound freight trains can often be longer than upbound ones - sometimes double the length, and even with two locomotives on the point, controlling train speed (due to slack run-in) can require an engineer's full attention.

Wayne

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 2,825 posts
Posted by gregc on Monday, August 19, 2019 6:35 PM

doctorwayne
The maximum amount of superelevation appears to be about .047" on that 34" radius curve. 

curious how you came up with 0.047"?

Fundamentals of Railway Curve Superelevation provides a detailed explanation of the physics and math behind the values for superelevation along with a tables of values.

one table (see Superelevation, A.R.E.A. Manual of 1929) indicates the max elevation of the outside rail of 8 1/8" (HO 0.095") for a 20 deg 286' (39" HO scale) curve for a train going 25 mph.  Less elevation is required for slow speeds.   The table shows no elevation values of 9" or more, or for curves > 20 deg (< 286').

 

the physics for superelevation doesn't scale.   The centrapedal forces depends on velocity squared.   a max 1/64" (0.017) is required on a 19" radius going a scaled 70 mph.

so it appears easements and superelevation are for purely aesthetic reasons on model railroads

 

but the question about superelevation around an s-curve made me think that while easements which allow trucks to pivot would be required, it is highly undesirable to stop a train on a curve.  That prototypical signals requiring a train to stop would always be on straight section of track (at least for freight service).    And this is impractical on most layouts.

 

 

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 10,198 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Monday, August 19, 2019 12:57 PM

gregc
both of these principles suggest that there would be approriate easements both before and after an s-curve on a prototype.

The method which I outlined in my previous post provides those easements into- and out of- superelevation automatically.  The maximum amount of superelevation appears to be about .047" on that 34" radius curve. 
Pretty-well all curves on the layout have easements for the curves themselves, whether they're superelevated or not.

wjstix
General 'rule of thumb' with S-curves is to have a straight section of track between the curves that is at least as long as the wheelbase of your longest piece of equipment. If you're superelevating curves, you'd want at least that long a straight section between where the superelevation starts for each curve.

That may be so, but I didn't deliberately bother with any straight track within most my S-curves.  If there's straight track within an S-curve it's there simply to place the rest of the curve where it needs to be.  I certainly wasn't aware of the need for straight track within an S-curve when I was building the layout.

The one S-curve which has absolutely no straight track within it also performs flawlessly, whether with a freight train or 85' passenger cars, and regardless if it's being pulled or pushed. 
It's part of the long grade shown in the photos, where many trains use pushers, too.

Wayne

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 11,412 posts
Posted by wjstix on Monday, August 19, 2019 9:50 AM

General 'rule of thumb' with S-curves is to have a straight section of track between the curves that is at least as long as the wheelbase of your longest piece of equipment. If you're superelevating curves, you'd want at least that long a straight section between where the superelevation starts for each curve.

p.s., Unless it's a very gradual curve, trains would normally have to slow down even if the curves are superelevated. Our "broad" radius curves, like 30-36"R in HO, would be considered sharp mainline curves on a real railroad, requiring trains to slow down to like 10-20 MPH.

 

Stix
  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 2,825 posts
Posted by gregc on Monday, August 19, 2019 9:21 AM

previous threads explained that superelevation is necessary to add a lateral force to the wheels/trucks so that they follow the curve at a specific speed without relying on the flanges to keep the trucks centered

and easements provide time for the trucks to actually pivot the slight amount to track the curve properly

both of these principles suggest that there would be approriate easements both before and after an s-curve on a prototype.

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    March 2018
  • 605 posts
Posted by BNSF UP and others modeler on Sunday, August 18, 2019 4:58 PM

I guess my question has been answered. Thanks eveybody! Even though I'm almost definitely going to keep that track straight, I'll probably just tinker with seeing how an s curve looks anyway just because why not...Laugh

I'm beginning to realize that Windows 10 and sound decoders have a lot in common. There are so many things you have to change in order to get them to work the way you want.

  • Member since
    February 2018
  • From: Great Plains
  • 1,141 posts
Posted by York1 on Sunday, August 18, 2019 12:51 PM

dehusman
I like to use masking tape for superelevation, building up to maybe 3 layers at most.  Each tape layer is offset from the next about a foot or a quarter of the curve.

 

I, too, use masking tape for superelevation.  I have an ess curve on the double mainline, with each curve superelevated.  I have not any problems.  I love the look of the cars as they go through the curves.

John  --  Saints Fan  

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 9,645 posts
Posted by dehusman on Sunday, August 18, 2019 12:32 PM

A lot of it depends on the radius of the curves.  I don't see why it would be a pain. 

Lets say the superelevation in the main curve is 1/16" (a HUGE amount of superelevation).  If you have an S curve after it and each other curve is 3 ft long then you might get to only 1/32 or 1/64 of an inch or so and only over the middle 6-8 inches of each subsequent curve.

I like to use masking tape for superelevation, building up to maybe 3 layers at most.  Each tape layer is offset from the next about a foot or a quarter of the curve.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 21,919 posts
Posted by selector on Sunday, August 18, 2019 8:58 AM

In his second post, our asker states the space in which he wants to do all this. If it's in HO, it will be a royal pain...

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!