N scale track height mismatch.

[AndrueC]

I was cleaning my track this afternoon and noticed an unusually rough joint. It's never bothered any rolling stock but it felt odd. Then I noticed that the problem affected both rails. This section of track has another running parallel to it and although the joint on that is in a different place it too seemed very rough. It's too far away to see easily so I took a photograph and was rather shocked and surprised:

 

I have another photo of the other section of track and it too is slightly raised. The sections of track are at the top of incline, albeit several centimetres from the edge and the joint sits on a single piece of plywood. The left end of that fishplates looks slightly open but I'd be amazed if all four joints had the same problem and I can't see the same on the other joint. Although it's the top of the incline I remember when I laid it that the end sat apparently flat all by itself.

 

The track on the right is Peco Settrack and the track on the left is Streamline. I remember that when those curves arrived they were wrapped in elastic bands that pretty much crumbled so they must be quite old. So I'm wondering if there is a slight incompatibility issue here?

 

To be clear it's not causing me a problem but I am curious about it.

[Ray Von]

Quoting my own blog here:

 

"Discovered today that I had ordered a different track (PECO SL-300F I believe) than I usually use - SL-300.  

 

The result was that the track on the deck was approx 1 or 2mm lower than the track on the layout. Hmm...

 

If I hadn't used "set track" points at the top of the traverser I could just raise the whole thing.

 

However, the solution was pretty simple - a (temporary) strip of plasticard of the right depth, to lift the track very slightly."

 

One careless mistake made when ordering online, the track can be replaced one day - but no real harm was done.  I now have a permanent 1mm riser to combat the issue.

[Sol]

SL-300F is code 80 to look like code 55,  in a base to supposedly match the SL-300 which is code 80.

[Kris]

That photo does not look like SL-300f. SL 300F has a rib down the middle of the rail that slots inside the sleepers to create the code 55 look. I wonder if there is a slight burr on the end of the track where it was cut. This could be raising the rail height fractionally in the fishplate and if on the top as well exaggerating the effect. 

[AndrueC]

Thanks for the replies, folks. Interesting to hear about the 300f. Having looked a bit more this morning I think I'm going to blame the track layer :).

It's only those four joints that have this issue, and the one in the picture is by far the worst. Thinking about it if there was a track mismatch there should four corresponding 'corrections' elsewhere and I can find none.

It seems hard to believe that I did that to all four joints given that I know of only one other joint that I didn't make properly but thinking about it that incline was painful to lay (it's in the centre of my board so over 700m from the edge). Access to that end is quite easy from the curve side but I would've cut that track by lifting that end (carefully!) into the air. I would probably also have been reluctant to file it for fear of breaking a joint further down the incline.

For now I'll probably just print a miniature warning sign as a reminder.

Edited March 15, 2021 by AndrueC

[kevinlms]

It sounds like it was the poor practice to change the type of track, right at the top of the incline. Any slight mismatch will be highlighted with any alignment change, perhaps due to different expansion rates. The change ought to have been done, part of the way up the gradient.

 

The same would apply at the bottom too.