Light section Flatbottom rail for OO

[Ruston]

Hello everyone,

 

I am about to build a new layout. It is a pre-grouping mineral railway and I was thinking about building at least some of the track myself as the sort of thing that was used on contractors railways, i.e. flatbottom rail spiked to the sleepers.

 

The question is what Code of rail is suitable and what is available? PECO do a Code 60 and a Code 83 but their website doesn't give the dimensions. Does anyone know the height of these rails and the width at base and head?

 

Do they do any other suitable rails? I am finding their website to be a PITA to be honest.

 

Thanks

[decauville1126]

Code 60 should be 0.060", Code 100 0.100" height etc. 

 

For really light track, Code 40 (0.040" or 1mm) is available - to members only - from the 2mm Society in drawn nickel silver. This gives about 2 1/2" rail height when scaled up x76 for 4mm scale - looks sort of 20lb/yd'ish. Code 60 is what I use for 35lb/yd rail whether it is light standard gauge or heavyish narrow gauge. Flange profile might also be a factor.

 

A bit of googling should find a Hudson catalogue with the rail weights/dimensions shown.

[pete_mcfarlane]

This is Peco IL-70 rail soldered to copper clad sleepers (without using a jig to do the sleeper spacings, so that it has that slightly rough look of some industrial track). It seems to take modern OO RTR wheels fine.

(It's still under construction, and will be far less messy looking when finished)

Edited August 18, 2018 by pete_mcfarlane

[coachmann]

How about Code 55 used for N gauge?

[alfsboy]

Peco will be producing code 70 flat bottom track for their USA line including points .Not really random industrial but certainly finer and more short line than main code 83.

[Ruston]

Thanks, chaps. I never even knew what the code numbers referred to before.

 

Code 60 is about dead on for 60lb./Yd. rail, at 4 1/2 inches tall. 60 lb. /Yd. is also the largest size in the Robert Hudson catalogue. I'll have to check the depth of flanges and also take into consideration how high the track spikes go up the rail before going ahead with it.

[Red Devil]

How about Code 55 used for N gauge?

 

The Peco code 55 is really code 80 with a bit embedded into the sleeper/track base so if soldered onto copperclad might look a bit strange.

[Quarryscapes]

You can get small section Micro Engineering rail from EDM models, I have some in Code 40 55 and 70.

 

I'm not sure what this is but the offcut I found on my desk has dimensions: Height - 1.13, Foot Width - 1.01, Head Width: 0.49 

 

I would say that's the code 40, but it could be 2mm Scale Association stuff rather then ME. I'm sure Paul can confirm if asked. 

[Nearholmer]

I don’t know about the 60, but Peco 83 has a very good cross sectional shape, matching post WW1 FB very well. In reality, some early FB sections had a very low web, wide foot, and rounded head, when compared with later ones. Not sure when the relevant BSS was issued, but that seems to have enshrined the ‘modern’ profile.

[asmay2002]

I don’t know about the 60, but Peco 83 has a very good cross sectional shape, matching post WW1 FB very well. In reality, some early FB sections had a very low web, wide foot, and rounded head, when compared with later ones. Not sure when the relevant BSS was issued, but that seems to have enshrined the ‘modern’ profile.

Many old FB sections were "square" i.e the width of the foot was the same as the height such as the BS11 1905 sections.  In the 1922 BS11 standard the rails were higher than they were wide. See   http://www.s-scale.org.uk/rails.htm

[Nearholmer]

Aha!

 

1922 fits with my ‘post-WW1’ date for ‘modern’ profile,

[spikey]

... I am finding their website to be a PITA to be honest.

Believe me, you are not alone.

Edited August 19, 2018 by spikey

[mike morley]

I've used Code 60 for lightweight EM gauge track several times.  It looks good and works well. 

I've also considered using the 2mm finescale rail but got no further than an eighteen inch long trial track.  It just didnt look right - too flimsy - and left next to no clearance between the tips of wheel flanges and the top surface of the sleepers.

[alfsboy]

US code 55 is fine for RP25 flanges if it helps.

[davknigh]

Here's some code 55 FB with code 75BH in the foreground for comparison.

The code 75 is ply and rivet, the code 55 is hot glued in place. A bead of hot glue is run along the foot of the rail, reheated with a soldering iron so it sits nice and flat then reheated once again once in position on the layout. It's remarkably durable and only needs to be reheated if disturbed. I got my code 55 from https://www.handlaidtrack.com/.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[mike morley]

A bead of hot glue is run along the foot of the rail, reheated with a soldering iron so it sits nice and flat then reheated once again once in position on the layout. I

 

 

A few years ago I abandoned an attempt at creating track using half-round log sleepers because my attempts to solder the rail to the heads of pins pushed through the sleepers wasnt reliable enough.

I can foresee a second attempt using your method happening soon.  Thanks, David!