there's a double track freight line near me (Manville, NJ) and there's about a foot difference between the heights of the tracks. As a train goes by, you can see some of the rail flexing because of a sagging ties. And as you look down the line, you can see that there are slight changes in elevation. This is kinda similar to track having side-to-side kinks. So it seems to me that it would be more realistic if trackwork/roadbed wasn't so perfect.
So with thoughts of cutting my own 1/4" roadbed from some old homasote, I wonder how accurate I need to be and if some minor sanding of the surface may be good enough and actually more realistic?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Caveat: Derailments occur more often when trackwork is less than what it could otherwise be.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
How flat do tracks need to be?
As flat as flat can be. No joke.
Any difference in the height of the rails as they join together can derail an engine, especially the pilot trucks of a steam engine, and any freight car or passenger car can derail as well. Strive for perfection. If the rails are not perfectly level and vertically even, take a small metal file and file down the edges of the rails so there are no sharp points.
The same goes for horizontal alignment. The rails must be perfectly aligned or derailments will occur.
Lastly, avoid humps and dips, especially where the rails join. Once a wheel leaves the rail, there is no guarantee that it will return in place on top of the rail.
Uneven tracks may be prototypical, but that is one element of prototypicality that is best avoided on a model railroad layout.
Rich
Alton Junction
Some model trains can do okay on uneven track, but finding them, and then accepting that those are the ones you must use can be a huge pain. The fact is that our models, except for some brass, don't really have suspensions. It means they can't negotiate track of different qualities as the prototypes can. So, while wavy side-to-side is generally okay, wavy and wobbly is often not okay. Best to keep the rail heights even.
Sidings in the real world are most often depressed by several inches, and I don't mean three or four...more like 10" and up. The reason is to keep parked cars from rolling on their own over the turnouts affording access to the siding and fouling the main where high-speed traffic runs. Accordingly, many modellers will replicate that height disparity in scale.
Crandell
I agree with Rich.
Your track should be as level and bump-free as you can make it. Since your models weigh much less than the real thing, they are much more sensitive to things being uneven underneath them.
Save the prototypical unevenness for a diorama where things aren't moving.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
The dynamics on a full size railroad are different than on a model. The model responds more negatively to slight variations. And many of the very visible variations on a full size track run would probably be unnoticeably small on a model, especially HO or smaller.While some slight distortin may be liveable on a long strtch of rail, if that variation occurs near a rail joint, turnout points or frog, or beginning of a curve, or grade change, (less than a standard car length, probably) derailments are very likely to occur with aggravating regularity. This might be doable in the larger scales, like O, G, or other large sizes.
Besides, regardless of how smooth the track is, most times I've seen model trains running, (especially mine) there is enough side-to-side motion of cars to give the suggestion of the unlevel track. At least, in my observation.
gregc there's a double track freight line near me (Manville, NJ) and there's about a foot difference between the heights of the tracks. As a train goes by, you can see some of the rail flexing because of a sagging ties. And as you look down the line, you can see that there are slight changes in elevation. This is kinda similar to track having side-to-side kinks. So it seems to me that it would be more realistic if trackwork/roadbed wasn't so perfect. So with thoughts of cutting my own 1/4" roadbed from some old homasote, I wonder how accurate I need to be and if some minor sanding of the surface may be good enough and actually more realistic?
As others have said, perfect would be best. Keep in mind that a foot in HO is a very small amount, 6" is even less. But more importantly your models to not have as much, if any, of the suspension of a real loco or railroad car. So they are not designed to follow uneven track as well as the real thing.
Sheldon
How would you imitate the irregularity of a five inch prototype change in elevation in HO scale?
Wouldn't that be a little over five one-hundreths of an inch? My work requires a very, very sensitive eye to proportions and I would never notice that if I were staring right at it looking for it.....
I would think you'd have to create the equivalent of a two- or three-foot variation to be able to see the difference....and at that kind of irregularity, a prototype train would go flying off the tracks!
I work in 1/24 scale and briefly thought about the possibility of super-elevation around curves just because I like the look of it, but soon realized that to make it noticeable, model trains would derail (and prototypes scaled-up to one-to-one would derail also).
Yikes!
The St. Francis Consolidated Railroad of the Colorado Rockies
Denver, Colorado
The above posters have given you some good advice. However, there was an author who wrote for ModelRailroading magazine, Jim Mansfield I believe, who did a couple articles about intentionally making non-perfect track. This was not for any mainline or branchline trackwork, but for a few isolated switching areas where the "engineers" knew not to exceed walking speed with the engines.
He modeled in ginks and kinks and shifted rail. The effect he wanted was to see the cars shifting from side to side and up and down as you mentioned. His trick was to make sure that the parallel rails were in perfect gage. Again, he was selective where he engineered in the misalignments.
While I did mention the sagging ties and the kinked rails, I was thinking more of the 12" difference between the tracks (not the rails of the same track) of the double track mainline, that a siding could/should be 1/4" below the main track, and that the track of a passing siding might look more realistic if they weren't at exactly the same height (flat as a board).
But I now appreciate the modeling realities of making the track as perfect as possible to avoid derailments.
Sure I have to be selective with what runs on here, but it's fun - and prototypical for Guilford.
Atlas locos handle it better than Proto 2000s
Mike
Modelling the UK in 00, and New England - MEC, B&M, D&H and Guilford - in H0
Hi!
Well, there is a big difference in what leeway the prototype can have with its trackage and what a successful derailment free layout can tolerate. I would urge you to keep the roadbed as flat as possible, and you will never regret taking the time and effort to get it that way.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
There's little similarity between real trains and models when it comes to tracking ability. A real train can run on pretty rough, uneven track because of its weight and the springs in the trucks.
Models can't tolerate uneven track without derailing because our models' trucks are not as flexible as the real thing. Smooth trackwork in the model world is required if you want good operation.
Hi Greg: I think this photo illustrates the difference in height between a main line and siding. My main is on 1/4" cork roadbed, and the siding, (actually an A/D track in my yard) is on 1/8" sheet cork. The 1/8" difference is about one scale foot. DJ.
I recall standing at the top of Clifton Hill in Niagara Falls Ontario a few years ago when freight trains still ran right through the middle of town. We were right beside the crossing guards when the lights and bells started to go off. I thought to myself that this will be really neat to see a train go by so close. The engine passed by us at a very low speed without any noticable rocking, but it began to accelerate as soon as it had cleared the crossing. By the time the back of the train approached the crossing it had reached a fair speed. I could see down the track that the last few cars were rocking back and forth so violently that I suggested to my wife that it would be prudent to move down the street away from the tracks - immediately! I knew that the odds of a derailment were slim but none the less it was kind of scary. I could not believe how far the cars veered off of center.
Modelling that sort of scenario would be cool, but as others have said, not very reliable.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I remember when the freights used to run along the road past Clifton Hill. It was fun to watch them. I miss them and still tell my kids when we are there about the trains that ran through.
My Build Thread: https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/185298.aspx
Follow me on Instagram: https://instagram.com/stephenkingsmaine
Is this the effect for which you're looking?
Wayne
yes, that the tracks don't look like they're on a perfectly flat surface and all at the same exact! height.
no, to the kinks in the track alignment.
This is one prototype characteristic that we as modelers do not want to replicate on the main line for any reason unless it is an older siding or yard, and even then I wouldn't get carried away. A detail like this breaks the 3 foot rule, you wont see it unless you purposely put your face on the track to view it, and your chances of derailments far exceed any bonus you would receive from it. Poorly laid track and derailments can ruin the hobby for you.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
I love this post. Good input from many. I would do what you want and if you don't like it, change it. I have not intentionally modeled poor track conditions, but after this, I may for a certain line. It would certainly enforce speed limits and size limitations, etc. Gives me a good reason to use those Kadee flexible sprung trucks too.
As far as the loco, maybe one of those old Athearn BBs with fairly loose B trucks?
Richard
Or, how about just for a sceic point, a section of abandoned trackage that isn't going to have anything running over it, and just hasn't been ripped up yet? One track nearby even had an abandoned motorcycle type speeder on it for close to 15 years.
My railroad represents a poorly maintained urban yard and the track (I hope) reflects this and the kinks and bumps do not cause derailments if the rolling stock is in good condition.
regards Jon.
I love it!
There's a great feeling of distance created by the backscene too.