Having laid some track around several interconnected turnouts, there are several places where, to preserve the track geometry, the spacing of the existing ties (Peco Code 83 track) doesn't work out. For example, a gap would seem too large for just two replacement ties but too small for three.
In the real world, I guess this must also have happened? How would it have been resolved? More wood, or less?
Perhaps I should add that this is a 1920s/30s branchline + small yard layout, so no high grade traffic.
Thanks,
Bob
FowlmereRR....How would it have been resolved? More wood, or less?....
Given that your layout represents a branchline, I'd say less. When I layed track on the partial upper level of my layout, much of it was done using Central Valley's "mainline" tie strips, which have the ties spaced pretty-much the same as any flex track. However, I also have some of their "branchline" tie strips, and the ties have wider spaces between them.I'll be using that, along with code 70 and code 55 rail, for less-used industrial tracks and some rural secondary lines.
Wayne
What would the tie spacing be for a yard or industrial siding in HO?
Russ
Modeling the early '50s Erie in Paterson, NJ. Here's the link to my railroad postcard collection: https://railroadpostcards.blogspot.com/
Whe Kato runs into this on their HO Scale Unitrack they go with fewer ties. I think it looks a little strange.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Wayne - Yes, that's what I thought should be the case too. But I think rather than end up with the result illustrated by Kevin (which I agree looks odd), I may try to separate a few more ties either side of the gap and spread them out a bit more to disguise the difference in spacing a tad.
Thanks all.
Bob.
I don't know if this link will work. http://prr.railfan.net/standards/standards.cgi?plan=58309--
I'd think it relatively unlikely that a railroad would 'stretch' tie spacing beyond standard. Of course, I also think it relatively unlikely that a real railroad would put the rail joint directly over a tie, either.
There are some potentially-interesting details for modelers in this drawing, a couple 'over' from the one just posted by wrench567. Note the decreased spacing either side of a rail joint in either rail, but with the actual joint not 'bound'. The PRR also used standard tie lengths instead of custom cutting (and numbering) -- note how the tie spacing varies at different points within these sharp crossovers.
I suspect 'historically' branch and yard trackage might not have had the precise tie spacing and perfect 90-degree alignment that GHA tracklaying usually seems to produce. It is possible that 'some' MOW operations would allow 'more' tie spacing to save money, but this might be false economy in a variety of ways over time.
Ed can find the reference to the somewhat unusual-looking 'light rail' track system that uses skewing of the ties (in other words, alternating longer and shorter gaps under a given rail) to reduce cost. I presume this is not intended for service with 'general system' car weights, but some version of it might be.
OvermodI'd think it relatively unlikely that a railroad would 'stretch' tie spacing beyond standard.
They have and still would if it was allowed on marginal branchlines.
OvermodOf course, I also think it relatively unlikely that a real railroad would put the rail joint directly over a tie, either.
I've seen it. Not a good idea, but its been done. The requirement states that you have to have one good tie within 24" on either side of a joint bar for class 1 or 2.
Track that is not excepted:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/213.109
Track that is excepted:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/213.4
I looked at tie spacing when I was out and about recently.
I found two examples where the railroad just left a larger opening between ties when a spacing issue happened.