IRONROOSTER As long as you aren't sacrificing reliability, sure why not. I usually get some imperfections as I lay track. I work on them to make sure the operation is reliable, but I don't worry about making them perfectly flat. Paul
As long as you aren't sacrificing reliability, sure why not. I usually get some imperfections as I lay track. I work on them to make sure the operation is reliable, but I don't worry about making them perfectly flat.
Paul
Around here, that pretty much describes things. I don't plan on rough track, but it happens and I fix it so things run reliably. Some rock and roll goes with the narrowgauge, but my line is relatively well-maintained.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
steemtrain:
Of course your rolling stock has to be able to run consistently. No question.
However, for me, almost all of my locomotives are four axle diesels with a couple of E units thrown into the mix. That allows me a bit (or maybe a lot) of flexibility that long steamers don't allow.
I have a few steamers but they are all of the 'short' variety, and I have made sure that they are all all wheel pickup. I do appreciate your challenges.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Unfortunately, most of our rolling stock is so light in comparison to the prototype that it doesn't usually respond in a realistic manner when there are imperfections in the track, whether the imperfections were placed there intentionally or simply overlooked when the track was layed.
I did have a number of passenger cars, weighted to about 16oz. apiece, which did display, in miniature, the ponderous nature of the real ones in some instances. However, the soft plastic used in the Rivarossi sideframes took quite a beating, and about half of the weight was removed to prevent further damage.If I could get that vibrating thunk, thunk, thunk of a flat wheel in HO scale, I'd definitely file a flat spot on a few wheels, but that sound doesn't scale down too well either.Generally, I prefer a well-maintained look (and performance) from my mainline, but don't mind making the secondary tracks and industrial sidings at least look somewhat under-maintained.I vaguely recall an article, quite some time ago, in either MR or RMC, on using a solenoid and some sort of optical detector to cause the rail ends at a joint bar to deflect downward as each wheel passed over it. I don't recall the particular details, but I don't think there was a sound sync'ed to it, and there was definitely no mud and water being pumped up by that action, either. (The latter would impress me a lot more than a boat moving over a lake. )
Wayne
I have a long-wheelbased steamer with a traction tire on the rear driver, and sometimes imperfections in the track cause the traction tire to lose contact, and the wheels just spin in place. I doubt I'll be adding any more imperfections, however realistic they may be.
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
I've got to admit I've never seen mainline trackwork on my favorite railroad anywhere near that awful. So it's not happening on my layout, either.
However.
There is industrial trackage. We'll have some fun there.
Ed
Hi Howard:
I think the real dips and hollows in 1:1 track are really neat. Copying them in scale is the only way to go, that is obviously as long as they don't derail your trains.
We were in Niagara Falls, Ontario a few years ago, standing next to the tracks at the top of Clifton Hill. A freight train came through, slowly at first, but as the engines reached the edge of town and the train started to accelerate, the last cars in the train started to undulate wildly as they made their way across several obviously poorly maintained road crossings. They were rocking back and forth so much that I began to question whether or not we should be standing next to the track watching all the action. Of course the train passed by 'safely', but I couldn't deny the 'WOW' factor of seeing the cars rock from side to side.
So, I'm firmly in your camp. I want 'bullet proof' track, not perfect track.
Regards,
Decades back I was privy to visit an extremely excellent pike. It was built in a 50' or 60' x 9' stripped down construction trailer for which the builder paid $500. The idea of the trailer was brilliant as the model rail was a career army officer and when either shipped overseas or to a new states side posting, the trailer would go into the motor pool, or be towed to new base.
The builder was a West Pointer with a strong background in engineering, henceforth the benchwork could hold several hippopotamuses, three elephants, and in addition a couple of water buffalos to boot. Legs were 4 x 4's, framing was 1 x 4 and sub-roadbed was 3/4" A/C plywood. All legs were double diagonal braced with 1x3's. The roadbed was Truescale with code 100 rail imbedded in wood sections with simulated ties. The scenery was was quite good with plaster over screen hills and mountains. Actually everything was perfect in every aspect including operation except one thing which it took me some time to figure out.....it was too perfect! There was nary a dip or sway when trains ran by. To me, this seemed unreal and it was. I remembered my many forays trackside and to yards....and all trains dipped and swayed, some to the point when I thought they would just tip over. This bothered me so much that in all of my subsquent layouts including my present Piermont Division, track imperfections are built in. I have in some sections pounded in dips every 39 scale feet, elevated some rails, and by using curfed Homasote allowed more warping of roadbed. I'm sure to visiting "civilians" my train operations appeared as poor modeling, but to me and other model rails not so at all.
Just a tip and just recently I had a comment from a visitor who noticed the designed imperfections.
HZ