Does anybody other than me have a problem with realistically modeling sidings, spurs, branches and yard tracks by laying them "wiggly"? I always take care to get my straight tracks as perfectly straight as I can. If I leave a track less than straight, I feel I've done shoddy work.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Yes, I am also anal about my track. But wiggly has its place in abandoned track and small financially troubled railroads.
I've seen the wiggly done, and it looks neat seeing a model train do what the real thing does over less than perfect track. However, like the real thing, it's going to be more likely to derail on the shoddy track. Also have to watch center to center clearances so the cars on the poor track don;t rock over and hit cars standing on the main - this is something I witnessed on teh protoype, crew left most of the train standing on the main while they attempted to deliver a centerbeam car of lumber to a customer down a siding that can best be described as ties on mud ballast. The centerbeam tipped over so far that it jammed against a boxcar standing on the main. The wheels were all on the rails, but it was wedged pretty good. The crew tried a few things, then gave up, locked the cab, got in the other loco (they ran the line push-pull because there were no turning facilities) and headed back to teh station. The next day a couple of heavy cranes came by and pulled the car upright so they could shore up the track.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
carl425 Does anybody other than me have a problem with realistically modeling sidings, spurs, branches and yard tracks by laying them "wiggly"? I always take care to get my straight tracks as perfectly straight as I can. If I leave a track less than straight, I feel I've done shoddy work.
I feel the same - track work is something I'm picky about - it takes me longer to due it for that reason.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Anyplace I uncouple and couple cars I like to have straight, mainlines are hardly ever straight as an arrow.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
wickman Anyplace I uncouple and couple cars I like to have straight, mainlines are hardly ever straight as an arrow.
My guess is this topic is in response to track the original poster has seen which is rather wavy - as in not laid very well.
There is a "trade-off" in assuring top-notch performance of our trains, versus the realism of some of the rickety trackage out there - especially for those of us modeling the pre-post war years.
Personally, I opt for the best performance I can get - but that's just me.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I generally do not intend to model rough track. It just comes out that way sometimes...
Happened when I was adding remote throws to some turnouts in the oldest part of the layout. I was even trying to be careful as I drilled up under the bridle to make a spot for the wire to connect up to the points.
Anyway, it's better now. First turnout on the right after the track emerges from underneath the Mother Jones Mill's overhead structure.
Looks deceptively smooth in the long shot. It's not.
Note the guardrail -- on straight track. I got things as best I could, but it needed the guardrail to make it reliable. I rarely have a derailment, but things do rock n' roll rather dramatically. I sure would make a bad mainline, but as a tail track/industrial lead, it does OK.
My advice? Don't plan on this sort of thing, but make it work for you if you must.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
"Wavy" track on the prototype looks straight when you're close-up. The waves are of a large enough amplitude that they don't interfere with train operation. When you see a photo of wavy track, I'd bet good money that it was shot down the track, from a distance, with telephoto, which tends to compress the field of view and make the waves look a lot closer together than they really are. To make our model track look that wavy, without telephoto to compress the view, would result in unacceptable performance compromises.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
I also lay my track as straight and level as possible. Looking down it, I see some slight waves. But it works fine (or I redo it).
Enjoy
Paul
A couple more thoughts on rough track.
Lots of what can make a track "look" rough can be done in how you ballast and blend it into the scenery, as well as weathering over that. My example pics depend more on that than the track itself. Believe me that the track is every bit as rough as you would want to try to operate over. If you depended on track appearance alone to convey the look, then you very well might find operating over it next to impossible.
"Rough" track is relative to scale. Most of us are in HO. Some are in N, where I'd say "don't go there" unless prepared for frustration. Go upwards and by the time you get to F/G scale you can actually model rough track with rough track (within reason) without too much of an issue.
I do lots of narrowgauge. While people think of rough track and NG going together, in reality the Rio Grande, at least, maintained track to a fairly high standard until near the end. Consider how fast the San Juan got between Alamosa and Durango. It left Alamosa at 7am and arrived in Durango at 4:05pm. It takes probably 3 hours to drive that by a more direct route, so 9 hours by narrowgauge is not exactly slow.
I do run NG diesels, but still have plenty of steam. Steamers tend to be more sensitive to rough track, so anything rough on a grade is going to really impact train length. Hit a bump or dip and traction loss for even a moment with a full tonnage train and you will stall. Fortunately, my rough stuff is basecally on level track.So one of the most natural facets of the hobby that people think goes with narrowgauge, rough track, is also a place that can deal with relatively little of that sort of thing.
Carl did seem to indicate that part of the look is side to side waviness. We've been mostly discussing vertically rough track. If one is careful, horizontally displaced or wavy track has a much lesser effect on model operations. Combine that with my suggestions and scenicking to make things look rough and you can have some pretty convincing but still operable rough track. So long as you're very careful to not introduce vertical bumps and dips, you can get away with a lot side to side.
I like wavy track:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbJkBDMCVN4
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
Anyone who has watched good quality pacing video of Union Pacific's #844 running at track speed on tangent track must conclude that even the best laid track in N. America has a lot of dips and rises, especially at level crossings or grade crossings. There are recorded instances on youtube that I have watched where I wondered how the tender didn't come off the rails it was wobbling and bouncing so much @ 75 mph. Supposedly the tracks were rated as suitable for that class of locomotive trailing a passenger set and at the speeds he was doing.
Therefore, at any given rated speed, all trackage is going to induce some wobbling of trains passing over them. This tells me that an eyeball down two or three well-aligned sections of 39" flex track is going to be good enough for my modelling purposes.
We rode the Grand Canyon Railroad a few years ago and on a couple of sections the wobble was enough to cause the toilet to splash water onto the floor of the restroom. I hope that they have fixed those sections since.
Joe
In both the case of UP steam video and the GCR, was this on welded rail or old school 39' stick rail?
That makes a heck of a difference.
IIRC, high speed rated track back when it was all stick typically required daily walking visual inspection or slow roll-bys by section men to check for loose fasteners, fish plates, etc. Talk about a grindingly boring job to do every day -- and the constant worry if there was ever an accident you either missed something or it came loose after you'd seen it...
That's why they earned the big bucks...mostly NOT.
It's also why the economics of welded rail looked really good to management.
It was a big part of the reason of the loss of available jobs on the RRs. Already headed downhill because of other labor-saving innnovations, between the Great Depression and, after WWII, the introduction of welded rail together most of these local RR jobs dried up.
I believe the video was modern taken with an HD cam in 2010.
I do my best to lay the smoothest track that I can. Any wavyness I consder normal for the late 1940s and 1950s. No dips or lumps as they can cause uncoupling.
South Penn
selector I believe the video was modern taken with an HD cam in 2010.
OK, then imagine what that would have been like on stick rail.
Sometimes it amazes me what humans endured -- and along with you that things mostly stayed on the track.
Here's a bit of lumpy track, and not shot with a telephoto, either.
The photo was taken at Minerva, Ohio, in 2010. There were lots of other interesting things to see, too:
I visited here last month, and all of the locos are gone, the entire yard rebuilt, and was mostly filled with empty covered hoppers.
Wayne
doctorwayne
I like this shot (thank you for sharing it). I may even do a scene similar to it on my layout.
Regards,
Don.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that both engines have failed, and we will be stuck here for some time. The good news is that you decided to take the train and not fly."
Those four E units are the former IC 4033, to NJT 4258; IC 4023, to NJT 4327; PRR 5793A to NJT 4325 and PRR 5905 to NJT 4324.
They managed to get to Cleveland, OH to the Midwest Railway Preservation Society property at W. 3rd. Street. Plans were to cannibalize two to rescue two. I have not heard of any progress toward that goal.
https://akronrrclub.wordpress.com/tag/e8a-locomotives/
I hope they can at least be protected and cosmetically restored.
Ed
I thought I was being so careful when originally laying my track. Once in operation, it didn't take long till I was calling it my motocross track. I had to go in and do some serious work to get it all level and smooth. It's still not perfect, but at least it doesn't cause trouble. I kind of like the imperfections in some of the sidings, but I won't stand for it causing derailments or uncouplings.
Steven OtteTo make our model track look that wavy, without telephoto to compress the view, would result in unacceptable performance compromises.
Steve,Don't bet the farm..You may recall I favor industrial switching layouts and as you know industrial sidings and industrial leads is usually far from perfect like a main line..
To achieve the effects I wanted I used a jewelers hammer and slightly dented the track.I operated this layout for over 3 years and the only derailments I had was cause by me.
Of course the secrete lays in having properly gauged wheels,trip pins,truck play and most important of all one needs a light hand on the throttle.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
mlehmanCarl did seem to indicate that part of the look is side to side waviness. We've been mostly discussing vertically rough track. If one is careful, horizontally displaced or wavy track has a much lesser effect on model operations. Combine that with my suggestions and scenicking to make things look rough and you can have some pretty convincing but still operable rough track. So long as you're very careful to not introduce vertical bumps and dips, you can get away with a lot side to side.
My thoughts exactly. In my experience, if I don't make an extra effort, straight flextrack looks pretty wiggly when you get your eye down at track level. What I will do if I decide to go that way is just not take the extra step of making sure the track is perfectly straight. I will not go so far as to booger up the track and I will not have any vertical movement at all. Unless you look down the track, you won't see the wiggle. It will not affect operation.
The section I'm working on will have code 83 mainline on an 18" clean ballast pile, code 70 passing siding on a 12" dirty ballast pile, and code 70 storage track with no ballast pile and a mix of old ballast and dirt/weeds between the ties.
While "rough" track does have visual appeal, I will stick with bullet-proof operation, thank you. (My current layout, if you could not run the biggest train forwards, backwards, slow to fast, without an issue, it needed fixed before I did anything else on the layout. So, yes, I could run an intermodal train that was 12 feet long, cars first, loco pushing, at a scale 75mph.... Without it derailing. That is what I would call bullet-proof.)
So, straight, level, smooth for me, thanks.
Dummy display tracks however.......
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Dave:
That wavy track video is hilarious! Call it the 'passenger train boogey'.
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
When you ride a train at speed even at good track rated at 79 mph you do sense both a bit of "wiggle" as well as the up and down variation. But as Steve Otte points out, if you eyeballed that track it would look very straight. I have had a cab ride on genuinely poor track and you feel like you are riding a (very slow) bucking bronco.
When laying flex track I try to avoid the visible wiggles by using one or another of the track templates you can buy -- Ribbonrail is just one brand but there are others -- that have a long tangent of stiff material that fits between the rails. First I run the tangent template through the flextrack, and then when I lay the track (using adhesive caulk) I push the template into the track while the caulk is still "wet." Same for curves by the way where wiggles look even worse to my eye.
Dave Nelson
My last layout, I took the flextrack I used in the yards, bent it into a series of tight S curves, and then straightened it out by laying it on edge and tapping the upper edge of the ties. I also cut out some ties and angled some others as well as trimming tie ends to make them not line up.It was FAR from laser-straight; it wiggled, cars wiggled, it looked great. And I never had a single derailment.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
I grabbed a couple of shots down by the tracks Friday that illustrate how even secondary track tends to be maintained to a fairly high standard, although sidings right next to if can be iffy.
This is on the P&EI main in Urbana. The track the loco is on is the old main, although it's in very much downgraded status. Even though it's stick rail, it's very straight and orderly.
Next to it to the right is the siding and it's seen better days. You can see the vertical displacement at each joint.
I am not certain, but pretty sure that even the main here is rated as Class 1 track, max freight speed of 10 mph. This is the lowest speed rating of all and it still has to look pretty good on the main.
A while ago, while watching a real train pass, I noticed that when a freight car truck rolls over the track, the track moves up and down quite a bit. So even though track looks like it has a lot of humps in it between joints, I bet it flattens out quite a bit with 100 tons of freight car on it. HO scale track doesn't flatten out like this when trains run on it so I try to lay track straight and level. The real trucks have a lot of movement in them too, if our models had fully sprung suspensions (with full length travel under our lightweight models), they'd probably be able to tolerate rougher track work. Prototypes don't have to worry about electrical contact either.
I've seen models with rough track and they look ok in pictures, but when I see a model roll over rough track in person, it doesn't look right to me...the scale is off or something (maybe it's got to do with the physics of momentum...real freight cars sway gently, models wobble too fast?).
Remember, in HO scale, 0.011"=1", so if your track is off by 0.010" it's pretty rough! I think a sheet of paper is around 0.005" or 0.007". I run with a couple of modular groups and some track (especially at the ends of modules) can be off by as much as 1/16" ...that's almost 6"! I don't think I've ever seen real track that rough (though I bet it exists!).
Anyone who likes rough industrial track (like I do) should join a modular club.lol I bet you will continue to like it...but (after rerailing trains for 6 hours during a show) you might start to lay track straight and level.lol
Cheers!
http://delray1967.shutterfly.com/pictures/5
SEMI Free-Mo@groups.io