Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Joe-Daddy: Thank youBruton:[quote user="Brunton"] And, unfortunately, wrong in several ways. Common sense? No, more a lack of understanding than anything. While durability and strength are related, they are NOT the same thing, any more than hardness and toughness are the same... Durability is an indicator of how much punishment something can absorb...[/quote]I was referring to the durability of the materials in the context of "handling & installation." As evidence:[quote user="Texas Zepher"]Personally, I use code 100 on my portable modules because I tried code 83 and it was always (I mean every setup take down cycle) getting damaged in transport.  With the code 100 I've had only two accidents.[/quote]The comment was not in reference to the wear of the rails, which I believe is probably a non-issue for all but the heaviest of usage situations. (As is deformation of the track from the weight of equipment.) [quote user="Brunton"]Strength, on the other hand, is simply the ability of a material to resist imposed forces. Here code 100 is much greater than 20% stronger than code 83 (in tension), because the cross-sectional area is more than 20% greater. In bending code 100 is probably around 20%, but that certainly isn't a precise value, because bending is not only dependent upon the area of the rail cross-section, but also upon the geometry of the cross-section, and that varies between manufacturers (and sometimes within the same manufacturer!).[/quote]I stand corrected, and should've been clearer; c100 rail has a cross-section of more than 20% greater than c83 track, and therefore at least 20% more strength, be it tensile, shear, or deflection. (Assuming the same cross-sectional rail profile, and the same alloys are used in manufacture.) But I really think we're splitting hairs here Bruton...[quote user="Brunton"]How much the ties contribute to the structural integrity of the track depends on the direction of the applied loads. For example, the ties contribute basically nothing to the tensile strength of track, because the modulus of elasticity of the ties is so inferior to that of the metal in the rail that it basically does nothing.[/quote]Agreed, so far...[quote user="Brunton"] Vertically the ties also add essentially nothing to the strength of the track, as the molded spikes carry all load from the rail to the ties, and they break off the base of the rail very easily.[/quote]I don't actually have any experience working with c83 track, but I'll go out on a limb and disagree here. Yes, the molded spikes do carry the load, but I'm guessing they are consistently heavier on c100 than those commonly found on c83, and therefore c100 will carry a greater vertical load before breaking free...[quote user="Brunton"]Laterally, ties DO add significantly to the strength of the track, as the plastic resists shearing forces much better than bending forces, and they tie the two rails together into a semi-rigid unit. Because of the ties, the moment of inertia of the track in a lateral direction is many times what it is in just the rails (approaching two orders of magnitude greater, in fact!), thus substantially increasing the ability to take load laterally, despite the relatively weak plastic.[/quote]Agreed again... I'll take your word for the "two orders of magnitude" part.[quote user="Brunton"]As far as kinking during installation - you have to push pretty hard to put a vertical kink in the track, even on code 70 (I don't have exact force values - that varies with the roadbed. Soft roadbed, like cork, will require less force than with a hard roadbed, like plywood - unless the roadbed itself is kinkeed in some way, then it's exacly the opposite). I'm speaking from experience here, not from engineering analysis.[/quote]This is exactly what I was implying by "careless construction". I was also stating that the heavier track will resist the lateral forces applied by the difference in the coefficient of expansion of the wood products used in benchwork & subroadbed as compared with that of the metal rail. As such, c100 track will resist developing kinks better than c83 with time, temperature & humidity...In summation, I was merely trying to say (in laymen's terms) that code 100 track does have some tangible, physical advantages and is stronger and more robust overall than code 83 (and lighter codes, of course.) And as such will better survive mishandling and is more forgiving of a less than perfect substructure, and will give better final results under such conditions than c83.BTW, Great layout Bruton, that helix is truly a thing of beauty! [8D]Fred: Chill... There's plenty of information out there, both in printed works and on this forum. If one wants an education, all one has to do is look. (Or post a question...) Midnight Railroader & Others:At what point do we admit that heavier track is a bit easier to handle without damaging, and somewhat more forgiving? How about we take this to the N'th degree... compare working with c100 to c55, or c40. Do you admit there's a difference here? Look, I'm not saying there's a vast difference between c100 and c83, just that there is one. And that may mean the difference between a working layout and one that's a constant aggravation, especially where someone new to the hobby is concerned...
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag

Update Reply

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!

Model Railroader Newsletter See all

Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!

Subscriber & Member Login

Edit post

Post Body

Tags (Optional)

Subscriber & Member Login

Users Online

Search the Community