Is it REAL? or Just 1:29 scale?
Long live Outdoor Model Railroading.
OK, like to see photo of different sizes side by side from the front on like, T ,t, smaller t and a above shot. Since I do not have other rail such as 332 and I only use 250 I was just woundering.
Can't find my side-by-side shot I took for a column a while back, but in reality it's not all that descriptive. It looks like ever-increasing sizes of rail. You've really got to see the track installed in the garden to get a good idea of the differences.
Fortunately, the next (February) issue of GR will give you plenty of fodder for comparison. In my GR Basics column, I talk about switches. Most switches shown are code 250, but the fancy ones are code 332. Many photos are taken from directly above, so that may give you some insight. Also, you can compare the rail shown in part 5 of my Tuscarora RR series with those of the feature railroad. The TRR is code 250, while the feature railroad is all code 332. Also, the photo in the banner of GR's home page was taken on my dad's railroad, which is all code 332 (The fancy switches are also from his RR--see the December '05 issue of GR.)
Unless you're going to be down on the ground shooting photos of your railroad, then I don't know that rail size is as "big" a deal as it's made out to be. Weathered code 332 rail will blend nicely into the landscape. Conversely, day-glo brass or aluminum code 250 sticks out like a sore thumb, and looks larger than it really is. I spend a great deal of time right next to the track with a camera, so the smaller rail is advantageous to me. I'm still waiting for it to weather naturally. If it doesn't soon, I'll be breaking out the brown paint.
Later,
K
Would love to go smaller profile indoors, but I need R1 turnouts in order to make my compact layout work in the allocated tight space and I dont feel like building 17 hand made turnouts . So I'm stuck with 332 and LGB, of course I could always ballast it half burried in dirt, that would be pretty prototypical for some mining trams like mine
Brian if your up to laying all your track with the lower profile rail, go for it! If I could make it work on mine I might darn well consider it also and save the 332 for the outdoor layout.
Have fun with your trains
All the photos in the magazine I do for Bachmann reviews are on 250.
Take a look.
As Kevin said, stock flanges down to 197.
I've used Hughes Rail (no spikes) at 190, and no problems.
215 and 250, stock, huge, toy-like LGB flanges NEVER are a problem.
So, on 332 rail you're paying for .082" minimum in height that is unneeded, and on 215, .117" that is unneeded.
It doesn't really matter which rail you use outside, nothing is in scale anyway when the backdrop is 12" to 1' and the track settles into the ballast and hides the ties. The perspective is always changing with different light at different times, as always in this hobby, it's a personal choice.
Kim
Brian Just stick with 3 ft sections , up your pant legs when you walk across the boarder.
Switches duck tape to your back. be sure to shave first.
Hi everyone,
Well this sure has turned into a discussion. Just got back from my run to Yorkton with another Mc load delivered. Gave this some thought. Matt...good point regarding my indoor line. It is almost 48" off the floor...rather close to eye level. Sunset Valley does make nice switches. Most likely I will be using the AMS track. Here in Canada it works out to about 3 bucks a foot as opposed to almost 5 bucks a foot for LGB. Ordering from the US is frustrating due to being hit with both taxes when it crosses the border. Thanks again for all the input guys! Later eh...Brian.
Me to i only use 332 for availability and price but i do concede that 250 looks terrific.
Rgds ian
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
Curmudgeon wrote: Shims may not be the best way to do it.I've seen that suggested before, even the styrene. Can't solder plastic. Beating the joiner into place is.....well...futile. The top of the base hits the joiners in the same place. Don't try to re-invent the wheel when there are products out there designed to do the job.There are 332-250 rail clamps (I have a set here), plus at least Llagas makes cast "blenders", about 1.5" long cast rail pieces.You look at photos in the mag of folks who have scratchbuilt or super-detailed or whatever, and it's on 332, I just turn the page.Why bother to do all that upgrade and run it on 9-inch rails?Outdoors, mainline is 250 and branches are 215 on the CCRy. I used all my old brass 332 in the shed.It makes a world of difference in the appearance of the railroad, and in photographs.Of course, since some think I don't even have a railroad and have only been at this for two months, you can take that advice as you see fit. TOC
Shims may not be the best way to do it.
I've seen that suggested before, even the styrene. Can't solder plastic. Beating the joiner into place is.....well...futile. The top of the base hits the joiners in the same place. Don't try to re-invent the wheel when there are products out there designed to do the job.
There are 332-250 rail clamps (I have a set here), plus at least Llagas makes cast "blenders", about 1.5" long cast rail pieces.
You look at photos in the mag of folks who have scratchbuilt or super-detailed or whatever, and it's on 332, I just turn the page.
Why bother to do all that upgrade and run it on 9-inch rails?
Outdoors, mainline is 250 and branches are 215 on the CCRy. I used all my old brass 332 in the shed.
It makes a world of difference in the appearance of the railroad, and in photographs.
Of course, since some think I don't even have a railroad and have only been at this for two months, you can take that advice as you see fit.
TOC
TOC, you made this statement sometime ago, and then the appearence of 332 started bothering me!
Brain, Indoors I would go with the llagas especially since your indoor line is elevated and closer to your eyes!
http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/ari/ari13001.htm
Vaporware, my friend. Aristocraft is toying with the idea of stainless code 250, but the latest I've heard on the Aristocraft forum is that this project is on hold while the commodities market takes time to settle. "Sometime in 2007" was the latest Lewis Polk (Aristocraft's top dog) would say. That was back in September. From what I read, it would only be flex track--no switches--so it really brings nothing new to the table. Sunset Valley already offers stainless steel code 250 rail. I do not see stainless switches on Sunset's web site either. They do have code 250 - 332 adaptor rail clamps, though, which will work with their track or AMS's brass flex track.
If you were told to use Aristo flex track in '04, the reference was either to their existing code 332 track, or was grossly optomistic--if not uninformed. The advice to use Aristo's 332 flex track and LGB's switches is fair advice, though the only switch LGB makes that's of use to garden railroaders who want to run today's large 1:29 or 1:20 equipment would be their extra-wide radius (#6) switch. Their 16000 series switch is only a 3.8' radius--less than the minimum required for some Aristo, USA, and Bachmann locos. I've had good experiences with Aristo's 5' radius switch (code 332), so if I were to go with code 332 rail, that's the switch I would look at using. With a street price of around $40, it's the best switch for yor money out there. The #6 switches are nice, but still pricey. (LGB's is more expensive than Sunset Valley's or Llagas Creek's code 250 #6 switches.)
kstrong wrote: By "A-C" do you mean AMS or Aristocraft? The latter doesn't make code 250 rail, but the AMS stuff was just announced in waining months of '04. I don't know if anyone actually had it in the ground before '05. Later,K
By "A-C" do you mean AMS or Aristocraft? The latter doesn't make code 250 rail, but the AMS stuff was just announced in waining months of '04. I don't know if anyone actually had it in the ground before '05.
A-C = brass 250 Aristo-craft, sorry
I have never actually seen many derailments on 250 myself but i have read in text books it is a problem with oversized flanges. But i have only ever seen one 250 layout and it was a very good layout overall.
I do not believe i could get 250 track for less than our club rail which is the normal size. I have alsonever see adds for 250 sets of points of which i use a fair foe of.
Rgds Ian
I started using code 250 because I preferred the smaller size and more scale look. I chose Llagas Creek Aluminum because it was, frankly, all I could afford. I've installed four Llagas Creek #6 and #4 switches I built up from kits. I cut my own ties from redwood fence boards, and have powered the switches with Del Air motors. (Still working on that part)
<> The only downside of code 250 is that it's not as robust as 332, so if you've got large critters, it will bend and deflect. If you use track power, know that joiners are the weakest link. The stainless steel ones I got from LC were worthless after about six months. I switched to Hillman clamps which hold together well, but had some problem with non-conductive corrosion. Fixed that by wrapping the rail with aluminum foil before tightening the brass clamps!
<> Derail doesn't seem to be an issue -- even with the spiked track. On the other hand, I don't have any LGB locos.
My advice? Listen, then see some layouts with the various sizes and metals of track. Ask questions. Listen to the answers. Then make up your own mind. Finally, slip on a flack jacket, as someone is sure to challenge your decision. But remember -- it's YOUR railroad.
The size of the rail has little to nothing to do with derailments, unless your flanges are so large that they're literally bouncing off the spikes. I honestly don't recall ever seeing that happen on all but the smallest rail sizes (code 197 and smaller). I've seen even LGB's oversized flanges run flawlessly on code 215 rail. I've never personally experienced a derailment that was the result of the size of the rail.
What causes most derailments (besides switches) is uneven track. As the track twists and dips, the wheels will ride up and over the rails. That's a function of two things--equalization (or lack thereof) in the trucks, and flange depth. The deeper the flange, the more variation there can be in the track before the wheel slips over the top of the rail. That's the one advantage of large flanges. The size of the rail has nothing to do with that.
The one advantage larger rail gives you is resistance to the occasional misstep. However, if you've got a firm foundation under your rails--either in the form of concrete or some mechanical structure or well-tamped ballast--then you shouldn't have much of anything to worry about. While I don't make a habit of walking on my rails, my code 250 withstands the more-than-occasional misstep. Even my old railroad back in Rochster--built with code 250 aluminum that was just floating in the ballast--stood up as well as my dad's code 332 line does to the occasional foot on the rails.
You're always going to have derailments. Twigs, rocks, and other things that go "bump" will find their way under the wheels of your trains. Larger rail does allow the smaller objects to be passed over uneventfully, but if the object is lying across the rail (as is the cause of nearly all of my non-switch-related derailments) then size doesn't matter.
My advice is to go with what you've already spent your money on. If you've got boxes and boxes of code 332 track, then go with that. A little paint and ballast, and the rail will blend into the ground quite well. If you're just starting out, then take your pick. The disadvantage to code 250 is that there is a distinct lack of inexpensive switches. But remember that the Aristo and LGB ultra-wide radius switches aren't inexpensive, either. Keep your track well supported, and either will serve you very well.
Hi again,
Interestingly...in this case the 250 rail is less cost wise than the LGB. It comes in five foot lengths. I believe Kevin Strong used the very same track on his latest project. Looks like I will keep it all 250 for this indoor project. I kept robbing track from it as I expanded my outdoor line, which is all LGB. I'll get Vic. involved with the track plan. He has a great way of making awesome use of tiny space. Outdoors I mainly just let em' go. Indoors I plan to have lots of interaction. Thanks again for all the input everyone. Later eh...Brian.
GearDrivenSteam wrote:Why do people insist on always doings things the hard way? Just buy the same rail height and be done with it.
Exactly! I say go with all 332, but use flex track. You wont regret it!
To be 100% truthful, trains derail on any kind of track sooner or later, model or full sized. The quality of track and wheel flanges, among other factors like wheel spacing, trueness and side to side flexion, with properly weighted rolling stock has more to do with reliable tracking than the code of the track itself. It's wrong to speak in absolutes without comparative data to support one position or another.
I run 332 and I only have a derailment when something falls on the track or the train snags a piece of vegetation or small animal. Now does that mean all 332 track is derailment free? Of course not. Not any more than it means that 250/215 has a greater or less derailment rate. I feel confident that TOC's track is laid with the utmost of care and accuracy so naturally he would have a very tiny percentile of derailments. Knowing that TOC's 250 is derailment free and my 332 is derailment free, can we now assume all railroads using those codes will be derailment free? I have no way to answer that with enough certainty to make a blanket statement that all of one type of track is prone to derailments or not.
It's the quality and care put into the entire railroad as a composite unit that makes it derailment free, not the code of track used.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month