Have desided there is no such thing. Sometimes just the makeup of what you are hauling derails and NMRA weights are no garrentee. Best we can do is get as close as possible by eliminating all the extra causes and tweeking it to your stuff. Had one stretch on a curve that was a probledm, fixed it bet had to make the track not level on the width ever so slightly.
richhotrain Texas Zephyr mobilman44 If you can run your trains over the entire layout in both directions at varying speeds, and not have a derail or unwanted stoppage or unwanted uncoupling..........then I would say you have "bullet proof" trackwork. That might be true, but It is not fair to the track work. Sure it is. It is a testament to bullet proof track work. mobilman44's point is well taken. Your point makes an entirely different argument. If you cannot run your trains over the entire layout in both directions at varying speeds without a derailment or unwanted stoppage or uncoupling, then you need to look further to determine the problem. It could be a flaw in the track work, wheels out of gauge, wheels not rolling freely, wheel flanges too deep, coupler springs, coupler height, truck pivoting, truck tilting, and the like. Rich
Texas Zephyr mobilman44 If you can run your trains over the entire layout in both directions at varying speeds, and not have a derail or unwanted stoppage or unwanted uncoupling..........then I would say you have "bullet proof" trackwork. That might be true, but It is not fair to the track work.
mobilman44 If you can run your trains over the entire layout in both directions at varying speeds, and not have a derail or unwanted stoppage or unwanted uncoupling..........then I would say you have "bullet proof" trackwork.
That might be true, but It is not fair to the track work.
Sure it is. It is a testament to bullet proof track work. mobilman44's point is well taken.
Your point makes an entirely different argument. If you cannot run your trains over the entire layout in both directions at varying speeds without a derailment or unwanted stoppage or uncoupling, then you need to look further to determine the problem. It could be a flaw in the track work, wheels out of gauge, wheels not rolling freely, wheel flanges too deep, coupler springs, coupler height, truck pivoting, truck tilting, and the like.
Rich
And that is why I made some reference to track related standards because the best trackwork in the world will not work with sub standard equipment or equipment outside the design standards of the track work.
Back to the basement, making preparations for the first sections of benchwork.
Sheldon
Alton Junction
mobilman44If you can run your trains over the entire layout in both directions at varying speeds, and not have a derail or unwanted stoppage or unwanted uncoupling..........then I would say you have "bullet proof" trackwork.
Like mobilman44 I too am 'late to the party. And i agree with his comments.
Just an aside. We check the track is clean. We check the wheels of our locomotives are clean. Remember to check the wheels of carriages and trucks. They collect dirt as well causing derailments.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
I'm a bit late to the party but I do believe I know "bullet proof" trackwork.
If you can run your trains over the entire layout in both directions at varying speeds, and not have a derail or unwanted stoppage or unwanted uncoupling..........then I would say you have "bullet proof" trackwork.
When laying/wiring your trackage, a key component is to test, test, test. And if there is a problem of any kind or of any severity, know that it will not go away until you fix it. It's just that simple.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
And the firearms owner
What Makes for "Bulletproof" Trackwork?
I simply banned all handguns (and long guns, too) from the layout room, and so-far, compliance has been 100%, with derailments reduced to only those created by the occasional sloppy operating practices of the layout's owner.
Wayne
ATLANTIC CENTRALI don't want to sound critical, but I can't even get my head around the idea of painting track with a rattle can.......
I fully agree. At the time I had not tried the airbrush, which I now can handle. I could have painted manually, but did not. The issues were indeed avoidable.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
peahrens trainnut1250 Stage two: ballasting and painting: Usually ballasting and painting will create some issues to fix. trainnut1250 Stage two: ballasting and painting: Usually ballasting and painting will create some issues to fix. Guy, you triggered my memory. I would say issues to fix or avoid. I painted my trackwork with rattle can paint and was too heavy handed at the turnouts. Too much paint (vs. a light amount) at the moveable turnout points rails got some of them sticky. I was able to free them up, but sooo avoidable. Similarly, I found with ballasting that some ballast dust atop the ties, with glue in the area, adds enought friction to cause a points movements problem. There are lots of hints in other threads about how to avoid this problem.
trainnut1250 Stage two: ballasting and painting: Usually ballasting and painting will create some issues to fix.
Guy, you triggered my memory. I would say issues to fix or avoid. I painted my trackwork with rattle can paint and was too heavy handed at the turnouts. Too much paint (vs. a light amount) at the moveable turnout points rails got some of them sticky. I was able to free them up, but sooo avoidable. Similarly, I found with ballasting that some ballast dust atop the ties, with glue in the area, adds enought friction to cause a points movements problem. There are lots of hints in other threads about how to avoid this problem.
I don't want to sound critical, but I can't even get my head around the idea of painting track with a rattle can.......
But then again, I don't paint rolling stock, or structures, or much of anything on the layout with rattle cans.
That just sounds like trouble from the start.
But that's just me.
trainnut1250Stage two: ballasting and painting: Usually ballasting and painting will create some issues to fix.
Guy, you triggered my memory. I would say issues to fix or avoid.
I painted my trackwork with rattle can paint and was too heavy handed at the turnouts. Too much paint (vs. a light amount) at the moveable turnout points rails got some of them sticky. I was able to free them up, but sooo avoidable.
Similarly, I found with ballasting that some ballast dust atop the ties, with glue in the area, adds enought friction to cause a points movements problem. There are lots of hints in other threads about how to avoid this problem.
Here are a few shots of the lazer straight and large sweeping curve bullet proof trackwork on my old layout:
trainnut1250 I have always prioritized reliable operation. The layout is now almost 15 years old and runs pretty well. I like to think off track work reliability in three stages. Stage one: the track has been laid down permanently (not loose) and is fully operational with switch machines and feeders all installed. During this phase it is important to cover all of the aspects that others have mentioned to get track that operates as flawlessly as possible. I test by backing up long cuts through complex track work and by running the largest fixed wheel based locos I have through these areas as well. Stage two: ballasting and painting: Usually ballasting and painting will create some issues to fix. The glue and paint will get into any non-soldered joints and you might find some dead spots that you forgot to feeder that worked great until you applied ballast glue. Depending on how heavily you apply the paint and scenic materials, you may have to spend some time cleaning the track to get the continuity back. This can be a process that might take a few cleanings to get back to square. Glued ballast will also permanently fix the track so that it can’t flex at all. This sometimes creates problems as the track that worked fine previously when it has some flex (even though it was solidly attached) and now has an issue due to the rigidity that comes from the ballast glue. Stage three: Old age and operations: Items will fail over time and they will require some maintenance. Things such as throw bars, switch machines and solder joints can fail requiring repairs or replacement. If you hold operating sessions, operators will find all the faults in your track work and equipment that you might be overlooking or not aware of. I usually have a list after each session to fix. Here is another point of view on Sheldon’s list. Code 83 rail is small enough - Not for me. I use codes 83, 70 and 55 with no issues. NMRA Standards are good – yes completely agree here Original regular head Kadee couplers only – no. I use the scale sized 58s with the older no 5s and whatever else on the layout (all kadee) with no problems. Code 110 wheelsets only, equalized trucks were practical – Yes on the code 110 wheels although there are a few semi scale wheels that cause no problems. Hard no on the equalized trucks – don’t like the looks (wimpy springs) or the reliability (one side can fall into frog and take an off angle set – derailing later – side frame can short on rail head ) – prefer rigid side frame trucks such as Tahoe model works, P2K etc... Something close to NMRA car weight recommended practice – Yes same here Easements a must have - when possible yes Large curves, in my case 36" minimum on the mainline – agree that the larger the better - my minimum is 30” which is very reliable but limits the use of large passenger cars and large rigid wheel based steam. I would add switch minimum to this - I use no. 6 or larger everywhere, no issues. No cork, no foam, homasote or wood roadbed for all track work. – Never used foam – don’t really see much difference in the other methods. All produce reasonable results. Current layout is all homasote – big drawback is having to sand sheet homasote if you don’t use homabed (or similar milled product) My typical train is 35-45 cars, longer trains are possible, 100 cars can easily be done. – Those are very long trains for most home layouts. I have run 40 car trains on the current layout with no problems – average length is 10-15 cars with the exception of reefer and oil trains. As you can see there are many ways to achieve reliable operation. Guy
I have always prioritized reliable operation. The layout is now almost 15 years old and runs pretty well. I like to think off track work reliability in three stages.
Stage one: the track has been laid down permanently (not loose) and is fully operational with switch machines and feeders all installed. During this phase it is important to cover all of the aspects that others have mentioned to get track that operates as flawlessly as possible. I test by backing up long cuts through complex track work and by running the largest fixed wheel based locos I have through these areas as well.
Stage two: ballasting and painting: Usually ballasting and painting will create some issues to fix. The glue and paint will get into any non-soldered joints and you might find some dead spots that you forgot to feeder that worked great until you applied ballast glue. Depending on how heavily you apply the paint and scenic materials, you may have to spend some time cleaning the track to get the continuity back. This can be a process that might take a few cleanings to get back to square. Glued ballast will also permanently fix the track so that it can’t flex at all. This sometimes creates problems as the track that worked fine previously when it has some flex (even though it was solidly attached) and now has an issue due to the rigidity that comes from the ballast glue.
Stage three: Old age and operations: Items will fail over time and they will require some maintenance. Things such as throw bars, switch machines and solder joints can fail requiring repairs or replacement. If you hold operating sessions, operators will find all the faults in your track work and equipment that you might be overlooking or not aware of. I usually have a list after each session to fix.
Original regular head Kadee couplers only – no. I use the scale sized 58s with the older no 5s and whatever else on the layout (all kadee) with no problems.
Code 110 wheelsets only, equalized trucks were practical – Yes on the code 110 wheels although there are a few semi scale wheels that cause no problems. Hard no on the equalized trucks – don’t like the looks (wimpy springs) or the reliability (one side can fall into frog and take an off angle set – derailing later – side frame can short on rail head ) – prefer rigid side frame trucks such as Tahoe model works, P2K etc...
Something close to NMRA car weight recommended practice – Yes same here
Easements a must have - when possible yes
Large curves, in my case 36" minimum on the mainline – agree that the larger the better - my minimum is 30” which is very reliable but limits the use of large passenger cars and large rigid wheel based steam. I would add switch minimum to this - I use no. 6 or larger everywhere, no issues.
No cork, no foam, homasote or wood roadbed for all track work. – Never used foam – don’t really see much difference in the other methods. All produce reasonable results. Current layout is all homasote – big drawback is having to sand sheet homasote if you don’t use homabed (or similar milled product)
My typical train is 35-45 cars, longer trains are possible, 100 cars can easily be done. – Those are very long trains for most home layouts. I have run 40 car trains on the current layout with no problems – average length is 10-15 cars with the exception of reefer and oil trains.
As you can see there are many ways to achieve reliable operation.
Guy
A few comments on your comments about my list. Not challenging your choices, just explaining my reasons/experiances.
I have used smaller rail in the past, it works fine, but I no longer feel modivated to to hand lay track except for the occasional special turnout. I model a busy 1950's Class I, code 83 is close enough.
I grew up in this hobby in a time when most all rolling stock came with sprung equalized trucks. I can say in 53 years I have NEVER experianced the failure you described.
And that is with sprung trucks from a large number of different makers.
These days I use mostly Kadee sprung trucks that have been refitted with Intermountain code 110 wheelsets, they do not drop into any of my frogs, most of which are Atlas Custom Line code 83, Walthers code 83, or scratch built (not Fast Tracks).
As you get into long trains, equalized trucks, and the lower center of gravity of metal trucks, has a large effect on reliable tracking.
As for the appearance of the springs - note my opening view, reliable operation trumps appearance. I am viewing my trains more from 3-6 feet than I am at any distance where that detail is noticable.
Why do I replace the Kadee wheelsets with Intermountain? - it creates one of the most free rolling trucks you will ever find in HO - extenisive comparitive testing says so.
Kadee couplers - the semi scale couplers work fine, BUT, they have a funny looking shape so they can mate with the regular head, they have just as much or slightly more slack action. And while they couple fine to themselves, my tests showed a need for some additional coupling "force" to couple with the original coupler. With an existing fleet of nearly 1,000 pieces of rolling stock, change over is not an option and I'm not comfortable with mixing them. Additionally the smaller side to side gathering range of the semi scale coupler can sometimes be an issue.
My mainline switch minimum is also #6, with stratgic use of #8's.
Long trains - one of the specific goals of my modeling is realitively realistic train lengths. My new layout, the track plan of which is published elsewhere on this forum, will fill about 1500 sq ft and have a double track mainline over 400' long. It will stage about 30 trains, most in the 35 to 45 car range. The main freight yard will be over 20' long as well, so an 80 car train could easily be "doubled" in or out of the yard.
These represent very believable trains for my 1954 era.
One last thought - curves - 36" translates to a pretty sharp curve on the prototype. The late Paul Mallery pushed the idea that 48" radius was the most desireable minimum curve for modeling a Class I railroad in HO...... His view won with the modular standards.....
My early experiances at the Severna Park Model Railroad Club taught me the value of large curves. Despite being a relatively small layout for a club, they have 36" radius curves.
Like that club, I have always been happy to settle for a little less layout complexity to have that appearance and operational feature. Most of the curves on my new layout will be in the 40" to 44" range, some larger, with 36" being the mainline bare minimum in just a few spots.
Even at that I still limit steam loco rigid wheelbases to 21', and use mostly selectively compressed 72' passenger cars for their more graceful appearance on curves.
Yes I understand not everyone has 1500 sq ft - but on the other hand I have seen many a 1500 sq ft layout with 28" radius curves..........
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
The search engine here isn't good enough to find the links, but we have had threads looking for the cause of derailments and people post pictures of the track work where a track meets the turnout at an angle, not a curve, an angle. Holes drilled to power frogs look like a turnout at Verdun.
I never heard of the term bullet proof trackwork when I built my first real layout in the 80's. I do not remember any derailments until the change of humidity and soldered rail joints cause numerous kinks. Once corrected I still did not have derailements.
I should add I have a healthy measure of OCD
Some people are willing to settle for a lousy effort. If you ever owned a business you know it's not limited to model railroading.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Attuvian1But what I'm really asking for is a list of goofs, mistakes, and imperfections that can pop up in the process of both design and installation - and have to be corrected after the fact.
There is always a bigger or better bullet.
Attuvian1"bulletproof" trackwork. ... But let me ask this question: Just what constitutes that description?
Kevlar crossties?
This has been well covered above. My first thought was a curved turnout that was not flat. One problem with that was a 4-8-2 where leading and trailing trucks did not do well.
I also had some avoidable problems when I installed flawed components. One was a turnout with an internally dead rail due to a bad internal jumper. Easily cured by adding an additional feeder but it never occured to me to check before installing. Similarly, I installed three Atlas code 87 90-degree crossings (vintage 2011) that had clearance issues (I forget the details) that I had to fix with a bit of filing of the plastic so the wheel flanges made it through easily. If I had been aware, I would have installed different crossings.
Along those lines, some turnouts have shorting issues where wheels bridge to the opposite polarity rail. While fixable with a bit of nail polish, knowing the quirks of given turnouts in advance might even, at the extreme, result in a different turnout choice. The gotcha here would be a knowledge gap as opposed to a technique error.
Also.. very important... Do not push the limits of your trackwork!
On the most recent STRATTON AND GILLETTE railroad built in my spare bedroom, I had zero derailments. However, my largest locomotives were a USRA 0-8-0, and a GP-7. All freight cars were 40 foot maximum. No passenger cars. Hidden curves were 18 inch radius with no transitions, and yes, there were "S" curves.
If I had tried to run 4-8-2s, SD-40s, PA-1s, or passenger equipment, I am sure problems would have happened.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
You can't do it once and expect it to be perfect. Sometimes, you have to tear up a section and rebuild it. Sometimes, a minor lift under one tie will correct a small vertical kink. Sometimes, it runs derailment-free for years but then you get a new engine or a long car and you're in trouble again. Understand that this happens.
That's why I put down track and roadbed, and then start working on other things, structures, scenery, signals, rolling stock kits. My track was fastened down but not ballasted for years, and I had chances to fix the track along the way. On the whole layout, I only had two trouble spots, one caused by unreliable Atlas snap-switches and the other by a vertical kink I didn't recognize until after the track was ballasted.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
The only thing I can add is that, despite all of our efforts, trackwork will likely have imperfections after the intial nail down. Especially if you have limited experience in this.
I intentially designed my layout with zero elevations because of the grief it causes, especially for switching and steam locos (that I run 99% of the time). I also took a lot of care when building the benchwork and I made sure all of my curves were of 22" minimum in radius. Despite all of these efforts, I still had a few imperfections that some of my finicky engines found for me. I also let the trackwork "sit" for a few years to see how stable it was, and fix any imperfections my rolling stock may find. I found a few within the first 6 months. After 3 years, I think I finally found all the gremlins and scenery building is planned for this summer. Lessons learned: take great care when tracklaying; test with a finicky engine; don't rush the scenery and ballast work until all the gremlins are found.
Simon
ATLANTIC CENTRALI still put performance above appearance regarding track, trucks and couplers.
+1
I learned "bulletproof" trackwork building from a group of true masters in the Scale Rails of Southwest Florida club back in the 1980s.
These guys proved to me that derailment free operation was possible, and since then, that is all I will allow.
Any derailments on my layout are almost always equipment problems.
People say I overbuild and put too much effort into foundation, structure, and framing. I think all this is critically important to achieve bulletproof track.
I won't go into construction processes because people have already covered that very well.
Working off of Sheldon's list:
Code 83 rail is small enough. I also use code 70 and code 55 rail in some places for visual effect.
NMRA Standards are good. Yes they are. The NMRA track gauge is the first pass/fail trackwork confirmation.
Original regular head Kadee couplers only. Same here.
Code 110 wheelsets only. Same here.
Equalized trucks where practical. Yes. I use striclty ONLY Kadee trucks and wheels on all freight cars.
Something close to NMRA car weight. My system for weighting cars is "something close" to NMRA recommended practice.
Easements a must have Large curves, in my case 36" minimum on the mainline. I don't have room for this in all locations.
No cork, no foam, homasote or wood roadbed for all trackwork. I do use cork. I might use foam in locations if the plan makes it easier.
My typical train is 35-45 cars, longer trains are possible, 100 cars can easily be done. My maximum train length is 12 cars.
About the only thing I don’t see covered are the NO NOs of which I did one of the worst you can do. Do not put a turnout at an elevation transition!!!!I thought if the track was perfect to and from the turnout and at the same level it would work. Well it did with all my biggie locomotives and rolling stock but when I bought a pair of six wheel truck Proto 2000 PA-1s they would derail every time through the diversion. All my biggies worked fine as well as my Athearn six wheel truck diesels and my Proto 2000 E7s but not the Proto 2000 PA-1s.The fix was to move the turnout 18” away from the transition. Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
dknelson Ironically, perhaps, bulletproof track might be getting harder to accomplish now that more modelers are attempting to replicate (following the lead of our British counterparts) the exact look of prototype rail and track, and closer to prototype or even exact Proto87 wheels and flanges: rail joints every 39 feet (staggered so they are never across from each other), slight dips at each joint, the irregularity of very light rail on very poorly maintained roadbed, that sort of thing. Dave Nelson
Ironically, perhaps, bulletproof track might be getting harder to accomplish now that more modelers are attempting to replicate (following the lead of our British counterparts) the exact look of prototype rail and track, and closer to prototype or even exact Proto87 wheels and flanges: rail joints every 39 feet (staggered so they are never across from each other), slight dips at each joint, the irregularity of very light rail on very poorly maintained roadbed, that sort of thing.
Dave Nelson
And for these reasons I still put performance above appearance regarding track, trucks and couplers.
Others are welcome to do what works for them, but I build on a firm foundation with good civil engineering principles applied to the roadbed.
None of the physics of real life scales down to our models, they have their own dynamics which must be accommodated for reliable operation.
To that end:
Code 83 rail is small enough
NMRA Standards are good
Original regular head Kadee couplers only
Code 110 wheelsets only, equalized trucks were practical
Something close to NMRA car weight recommended practice
Easements a must have
Large curves, in my case 36" minimum on the mainline.
No cork, no foam, homasote or wood roadbed for all trackwork.
My typical train is 35-45 cars, longer trains are possible, 100 cars can easily be done.
I won't repeat all the good points listed above but will add one of my own.
Curved turnouts need to be securely fastened to the roadbed. I have always let turnouts float making sure the track leading up to them was stuck down solidly and I never had an issue. With a curved turnout that is not well secured a big steamer will torque it when it hits it at speed and will pop out.
I use various larger steel levels on the rails to check for dips. I use this level on the track to make sure the rails are even along the way. It has fine pencil lines on it so when I am doing superelevation I can check for consistency.
I have a long straight stretch that has a bit of an undulating dip in it. I thought it looked so cool when a thirty car freight rolls through it I didn't fix it.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Yes, good trackwork starts with a good base - subroadbed. Geometry needs to be very good with curves the longest equipment can handle, easements on curves and grade changes. I also check subroadbed for dips and rises using a nice straight piece of lumber to get rid of those before track goes down.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Good morning
I think the Bear hit the nail right on the head in his statement of providing a good foundation.
Even our childhood story books gave us life long lessons when our brains where still developing.
That's why the third little pig had much more success building his house on solid ground out of brick. Unlike the first little pig that built his house out of straw on the sand. We won't even mention the second little pig as he had the right idea but Cut Corners, No pun intended The big bad wolf representing when your locomotive "Huffs and He Puffs" but he falls off the tracks
A good foundation IS the key factor for everything else to go well for anything. As long as the sub roadbed bench work transitions gradually for all factors involved. Then taking the time to make sure the track work on top of it can do the same. If subtle transitions are made everywhere there is one, there should be no problems.
Much like the artist Monet orchestrated his beatiful flow of color in his paintings. He subtly transformed one color into the next. You can see this up close as the color contrast looks somewhat blurry, but standing back at a distance from his work it has distinct definition. The reason why he was, and remains such a famous artist to this day.
TF
charlie9 I built a rather large HO scale layout using code 100 atlas flextrack with PECO and Shinohara switches including double slips and 3 ways. I ran mostly 4 axle geeps and yard engines and found the track to be pretty much "bullet proof" Then--I started putting some of my older brass steam and a couple of later Chinese 4-8-2 and 2-10-2 locos on the layout. Then I had to re-define "bullet proof". It no longer applied to my trackwork. Test your trackwork as you lay it with the longest wheelbase, rigid frame engine you intend to run if possible. Then you will know what "bullet proof" means.
I built a rather large HO scale layout using code 100 atlas flextrack with PECO and Shinohara switches including double slips and 3 ways. I ran mostly 4 axle geeps and yard engines and found the track to be pretty much "bullet proof"
Then--I started putting some of my older brass steam and a couple of later Chinese 4-8-2 and 2-10-2 locos on the layout. Then I had to re-define "bullet proof". It no longer applied to my trackwork.
Test your trackwork as you lay it with the longest wheelbase, rigid frame engine you intend to run if possible. Then you will know what "bullet proof" means.