Quick question.... What would prototypical sections of rail have been around 1925 in the Northeast? Doing some super detailing and want it to be correct.
Thanks in advance!
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
Quick answer - 39 feet.
Slightly longer answer - New at the time rails were being shipped from Bethlehem Steel and others cut to 39 foot lengths. There was still plenty of 33 foot rail in service on secondary, yard and industrial trackage, and on older railroads which had not been upgraded recently.
Also, rail was frequently cut to odd lengths to fit the last gap in a tracklaying project. There was also rail which, having become end-battered in service, was 'rejuvenated' by cutting off the battered ends (usually just clear of the rail joiner bolt holes.) That's why photos of MW storage yards show rails of varying lengths on the spare rail racks. Such 'relay' rail was frequently used for storage and industrial spurs.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - where rail came in 16 and 20 meter lengths)
Although the last time I mentioned this, a couple of people piped up disagreeing with me, I've seen a couple of sources that said that tracklayers tried to stagger the rail joints from one rail to the other, so they wouldn't be right in line with each other they way they are on model RR sectional track.
Exactly right. The only place rail joints might have been opposite each other was at turnouts or crossovers, otherwise prototype rail joints were staggered.
And to answer the original question, most rail was in 39 foot lengths so it would fit onto a 40 foot flatcar or into a gondola.
cacole Exactly right. The only place rail joints might have been opposite each other was at turnouts or crossovers, otherwise prototype rail joints were staggered.
True - IF you are modeling U.S. prototype. Not true if you are modeling Japanese prototype - where the joints of opposite rails were supported together on ties more closely spaced than usual.
To help you visualize: | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | ------. Rail joints for both rails were on the same pair of ties.
IIRC, the last time the rail joint stagger thing came up one of our Canadian forumites stated that one of the big Canadian lines decided it really didn't matter, and let joints fall wherever the rails happened to end...
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Thanks guys! I posed the same question tonight to a couple guys at out NRHS Meeting and got exactly the same answers. I will do 33' in my yard which is "old" track and 39' on the newish Mainline. I will also place the joints not opposite each other.
Thanks!
For those with an interest in this topic, and given that we are rail fans or model rail roaders we probably should all find it to be of interest, Simmons Boardman publsihes, or published, a "Track Cyclopedia" very much like their car and locomotive cyclopedias. I have the 9th edition, 1978. It has fascinating information on every aspect of right of way and one section deals with rail lengths. They make the point, mentioned above, that rail length has long been a function of the standard cars used to haul it. Thus lengths of 15, 20, 30, and 33 feet were used over time, always a bit shorter than the standard flat car or gondola car length. So the 39 foot length still often seen and used is a product of the "standard" 40 foot car era. They also made the point that even when cars got longer 39 feet remained a standard because of the ease of milling, ease of handling in the field, that length, and the need for replacements for 39' rail that was already laid in such quantity.
There are however lengths longer than 39' now being produced and used. I think longer rail has become more common since 1978, but even the 1939 AREA standards provided for 45' to 78' lengths.
The book also says that railroads would accept about 11% of rail shipments made to shorter lengths, to be used for switch connections or on curves. Rail shorter than 39' was typically painted green on the ends. I had often seen that but never knew the reason before buying the book.
An excellent article by Tom Murray on the most modern rail manufacturing is in the December 2004 Trains Magazine. Highly recommended. So is an older article by J David Ingles in the February 1983 issue of Trains.
Dave Nelson
Everybody has given a correct answer. For every rule or convention there are an equal number of exceptions. For the purpose of this modeler's intent we will assume the use of 39ft main, and 33ft yard length, staggered joints. I would suspect that lengths shorter than 33 ft are so old that they are completly worn out and have been replaced by now, but could still be in frequent use during the era this modeler is using.
Modern rail, that is mainline rail on Class I is continuous rail- that is to say it's welded and shaved to give seamless joints. It can be made up of older rails either 33ft or 39 ft (I've seen both) that have been welded, or new rails of the 45ft or 78ft lengths, also welded. Conventional joints are used infrequently, but are still used when the situation demands it. For modeling purposes soldered rail with no visible joiners will work, good use for flex track. Yard tracks and sidings for the most part are older rails of the 39ft jointed type as it is not economicaly viable to replace track when it is not physicaly broken where speeds are only 5-10 mph anyway- much of this type of track dates back prior to WWII. Fake joints can be cut into the rail using a Dremel with a cut off wheel- give the top of the rail a quick hit whith the cutter, just enough to make a line and then use rail joint plates made of thin styrene to complete the look.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
Which railroad you're modeling matters in that era as many railroads had unique sections rolled to their specifications, including in the northeast New York Central (Dudley section), PRR (PS section), Lehigh Valley (LV section), and DL&W (DLW section). Other railroads with their own sections included GN, SP (head-free section), and D&RGW. You'd have to be modeling in microscopic detail to tell the difference between these, however! Suffice to say that what you probably most need to know is weight and length. In the 1925 era, most of the rail that was in place was 34' or even 30' length, with 39' appearing in new lays on heavy-tonnaged main tracks. Main line rail weights in that era would vary from 119-117-115-133-110 on new lay to 100-95-90-85 on older lays, and even 72-75 on some light-density main lines. There was some 136-133-132 rail in existence on the most heavily tonnaged main lines but not much.
As a general note, almost no main line anywhere in the U.S. is laid entirely with one weight of rail. Rail is expensive and only laid when absolutely necessary and then in the place it's most needed, which is on curves and on major ascending grades. Very commonly one will see heavy rail on curves and major grades, the next size down on tangent track, and the next size down on the main track through terminals and crew changes where trains move slowly. For example, if the size is 141-136 welded on curves, then 115-113 jointed might still be in use on some tangents, and 110-105-102-100 jointed on the main track through the terminals.
Sidings often have lighter rail, but not always. There are many sidings where old 90 or 100 was replaced with 2nd-hand welded 136, but the parallel main track is still laid with 115 jointed. Similarly many yard tracks might be 136 2nd-hand welded or 115-113 jointed, all in the same yard, depending on when the track was laid. Yards are built incrementally. There are some recently built yards (storage-in-transit or short line) laid with oddities such as 90 lb. CWR.
Industry tracks might be laid with just about anything. There are many recently built industry tracks laid with new 136 because it's cheaper than new 115 and easier to get, but the same industry might have a mixed up mess of 136, 133, 132, 115, 113, 100, 90, 85, and even 72.
If you really want to get carried away, often the rail size through grade-crossings is one size larger than standard to get a stiffer section modulus on the grade crossing, e.g., a line laid with 115 will be 136 through the crossing.
RWM
// asked to wander over here by Railway Man (from the TRAINS magazine forums). Adding to his epistle:
The 39 foot lengths we are so used to became standard in the late 1930's. Before 1937 the length of most rail was determined by the mill practice, metallurgy and where that particular mill adopted controlled cooling (CC) over the earlier open hearth (OH) method of hydrogen gas bubble elimination. Before controlled cooling and improved metallurgy in the billets, the top and bottom of the billets (and resulting rail ends) had a higher percentage of defects that were routinely cropped/ cut off at the end of the rolling process to guarantee quality of the rail. Even with today's 78 and 80 foot rail blanks, there is still a sizable length cropped-off the ends for similar reasons. (Why sell something that has such a large chance of having defects and you don't have the technology to check to assure quality?)
Quoting from Santa Fe's standard text that we "Chico's Children" all were indoctrinated with (Leo Rekusch, we will always remember your contributions and lessons learned - Sorry you left us so early.):
"most lightweight rail (75#/Yd and less) will be shorter than 33 feet, many as short as 24 feet. In the past, 75# rail was made in 24', 26', 28' and 30' lengths. Most 75# rail is in 26' lengths. Ninety pound rail was made in 31'6", 33', and 39 foot lengths. Most rail since 1937 has been in 39' lengths."
We generally though of pre-1937 as 33 foot standard and after 1937 as 39 foot standard which served us well.
And why are you so interested in the rail lengths when you still employ square joints? Was your subject railroad just laid with new steel or had it been there a while? (Only that particular railroad's rail record knows for sure)
The railroad I was recently working on in Greeley, CO was relaid with secondhand 85# cascaded rail in 1923 with 1911-1913 mill branding stamping on it and almost all 30' lengths. Still in daily service.
We now return you to your regular prototypical forum.
tomikawaTT cacole Exactly right. The only place rail joints might have been opposite each other was at turnouts or crossovers, otherwise prototype rail joints were staggered. True - IF you are modeling U.S. prototype. Not true if you are modeling Japanese prototype - where the joints of opposite rails were supported together on ties more closely spaced than usual. Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Well the original poster said he was modelling "the northeast" which I think means the northeast part of the United States. Suppose he could be modelling the northeast part of Hokkaido though....
tomikawaTT IIRC, the last time the rail joint stagger thing came up one of our Canadian forumites stated that one of the big Canadian lines decided it really didn't matter, and let joints fall wherever the rails happened to end...
I think railroads generally tried to avoid having the joints be right across from each other, but if it happened once in a while - like where a repair was done using a non-standard length of rail or something - they didn't lose sleep over it. Mainly I guess they didn't want a stretch where every joint was lined up straight across from each other.
if you go to the dot library online special collections site and look at the railroad accident reports for the year and carrier you are interested in you will often find a detailed description of the track work where the accident took place. the site makes for interesting reading and i find it somewhat interesting in that whenever there was a fatality the rest of the crew often tries to blame everything on the dead guy.
I wish I had know about stagered joints earlier.
BTW, my rails are not cut. I've use a fine saw to make a cut only into the rail head.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
On shortlines panel tracks are often used after a wreck. 39' sections, with ties, all ready to go. Fast to set in place, and get trains moving again. They usually stay as square joints, unless lucky enough to get welded rail laid later.
The newer part of the Horicon yard is 90 lb welded. Cars roll decent enough. I'm pretty sure the newer switches are 115 lb.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
wedudler I wish I had know about stagered joints earlier. BTW, my rails are not cut. I've use a fine saw to make a cut only into the rail head. Wolfgang
What kind of track is that? It looks great!
Another reason that the rail was 39 feet was that 40 foot lengths of rail with 40 foot cars could potentially cause harmonics which would over time destroy track and equipment.
santafe347 Another reason that the rail was 39 feet was that 40 foot lengths of rail with 40 foot cars could potentially cause harmonics which would over time destroy track and equipment.
Not really. Remember a "40 foot" boxcar is actually 45-46 feet long, 40 ft is the inside length of the car, not the wheelbase. Some 50+ ft long cars had problems with 39 ft rail because the wheelbase was 39 ft and the wheels would hit the joints at the same time.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
santafe347wedudler I wish I had know about stagered joints earlier. BTW, my rails are not cut. I've use a fine saw to make a cut only into the rail head. Wolfgang What kind of track is that? It looks great!
It's from Central Valley, the branch line type.
Wow! I haven't checked this thread for a couple of weeks. I figured it had died a peaceful death....LOL
Thanks for all the input, it has been very helpful to me. Since I model a freelance RR loosely based on the NYO&W, and that the Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western RR is set in 1925, I have chosen to use 33' lengths of rail in the main yard and 39' on the mainline. The story is that the mainline has been relaid after some derailments but the yard rail was still sound.
I had the opportunity to do some railfaning in Canandaigua, NY recently and was surprised to see rail from 1916 (and earlier) still being used by the Finger Lakes Railway there as shown in the photo. Thanks again to all of you for some great info!