P4 Scale Rail Length

[Morphaniel]

I'm not a P4 modeller and don't aspire to be but I have recently been musing about scale rail lengths on layouts set prior to the 1960s and was wondering whether P4 or similar finescale modellers lay track to scale length? The wisdom of the Internet suggests that mainstream rail lengths between the second world war and the '60s was 60ft on the mainline and 45ft on branches (subject to repair/relaying - and of course there were dozens of standard rail lengths in use in earlier years and for specific operating companies prior to the war, but let's keep it simple ).

 

I have heard of some modellers who notch rails at scale length or use cosmetic fishplates but it struck me eventually that the P4 standard may have something to say on the subject. I haven't been able to find anything about rail length on the reference pages I've looked up though and rail length is rarely, if ever referred to in articles in the model rail press. Can anyone enlighten me?

 

 

[Derekstuart]

Hello Morphaniel

 

Are you asking about the practice of 'simulating' scale track panels or asking what those panels should be?

 

You are right that track panels on the mainline evolved to 60ft in the end. Branches could be former of either 45ft or 30ft panels. However, I seem to recall seeing 60ft panels on a branch (Esk Valley) and also some station areas on the mainline would have had 30ft and 45ft panels.

 

The general rule: rail starts on the mainline, when renewed it is used on branch and secondary lines if good enough and when that in turn is relayed it is moved to sidings.

 

As for the policy of simulating rail panels in P4- you can put cosmetic fishplates on the rail and as long as you space the sleepers right for the imagined rail ends, it would look passable. Some people notch the rail top, others don't on the basis that it doesn't look realistic and gathers dirt. Others then cut each rail length to the required length and build each panel prototypically.

 

Like in any other scales/ gauges, how far to go depends on the builder. One thing I would really strongly advocate against: mixing real wood on turnouts with plastic sleepers on plain track.

 

Derek
 

Edited December 26, 2020 by Derekstuart

[ikcdab]

8 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

Hello Morphaniel

 

Are you asking about the practice of 'simulating' scale track panels or asking what those panels should be?

 

The op is asking if anyone simulates scale length rails.

[Wheatley]

The P4 standards dictate the relationship between wheel and track in terms of things like gauge, wheel profile and width, flangeway dimensions etc to ensure consistent and reliable behaviour, especially through pointwork.

 

The rail length is not a function of any of those, it is a function of the prototype and varies with the prototype in the same way as the number of bolts in the chairs or the colour of the locomotives. Therefore it is not set out in the standards (as far as I can see). 

 

Many (most ?) P4 modellers will notch rails and add dummy fishplates or lay in prototype length panels with functional fishplates, but then so do a lot of OO modellers. 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by Wheatley

[Hibelroad]

The answer has to be no as it would inevitably lead to dog legs at each track section joint on anything other than straight track. For similar reasons crossovers and other complex pointwork is often built with long rail lengths in order to get a smooth flow through the formation. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

Short panels were also created by 'recutting' where worn or damaged ends of rails were trimmed and bolt holes redrilled. IIRC it was 15" taken off each end so the length of the rail came down in 2'6" intervals to a minimum length of 45' or the maximum head wear for re-use was reached whichever was sooner.

[zarniwhoop]

As a sometimes 00 modeller, I have a test track (concentric ovals of 16.5mm, 12mm and 9mm - the latter two for narrow-gauge HOm and HOe/009) on thin ply. This used code streamline (code 75 for 00) on cork bases (track only, not the rest of the layout) and PVA for the ballast. I tried notching the 9mm and 16.5mm rails on the front parts of the layout - on 00 most items are heavy enough to give a clickety-clack which suits me fine but (depending on living arrangements) might not be what you want. Clearly, notching rails on ½" chipboard or other surfaces is unlikely to resonate the same way.

 

FWIW I didn't notch the 12mm because that is for modern RhB and would be inappropriate. The 9mm clicks are only audible (and not loud) on the Austrian 5090 railcars which are long and quite heavy, for everything else the 9mm stock (including N locos) is too light to give the clickety-clack.

[Bernard Lamb]

Track should be laid in panels of the appropriate length for the period and location. Nothing to do with P4 or any other standard. It applies just as much to 00. If you do build in scale length panels do not forget to adjust the sleeper spacing adjacent to the rail ends.

Bernard 

[Paul Cram]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Track should be laid in panels of the appropriate length for the period and location. Nothing to do with P4 or any other standard. It applies just as much to 00. If you do build in scale length panels do not forget to adjust the sleeper spacing adjacent to the rail ends.

Bernard 

Also the sleeper widths at the join.

[Siberian Snooper]

If you use Templot for drawing up your track plan, you can set the panel length, for your chosen prototype and alter for sidings etc. I can't remember whether or not it will do the wider timbers at the joint, if your prototype requires it.

 

 

[Morphaniel]

Thanks all....  very interesting and it's certainly answered my question.

 

I do realise that modellers of all kinds might be interested in simulating 'scale length' panels but P4 is associated with 'greater realism', so I focused the question - no offence intended...

 

I model in 00 using Peco track myself and am considering cutting the track into scale panels in my yard layout. With the turnouts across the layout the standard track lengths will have to be cut anyway and it seems like an easy additional nod to real life - I am using bullhead rail and C&L plastic fishplates.

 

I shall have to look into the question of the sleepers!

[Paul Cram]

Don't forget the keys point away from the joint as well.

[Grizz]

The minimum permissible rail length in normal track on the UK main line is 4.5m. That includes welding lengths in. That is not to say that there aren’t shorter lengths out there on the network in sidings and odd lengths knocking around through old S&C units. It is not always possible to align joints in S&C. 
 

So if a rail requires replacing in jointed track then the ideal situation would be replace like for like. But in the past extra joints were sometimes cut in because the correct length replacement wasn’t available. This is not ideal and it is better not to introduce extra joints in the track. However when the pressure is on to get the rail tipped in, strapped up and the possession handed back so trains can run then, as long as it is safe, shorter rails can be installed. 4.5m is still the normal minimum. 
 

Joints are normally set out so that on opposite rails they are in the same bed. This is primarily to prevent twist from occurring when the sleepers are voiding and dipped joints occur. Joint stagger within that bed is also limited, this is detailed in track engineering standards. 
 

 

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Morphaniel said:

Thanks all....  very interesting and it's certainly answered my question.

 

I do realise that modellers of all kinds might be interested in simulating 'scale length' panels but P4 is associated with 'greater realism', so I focused the question - no offence intended...

 

I model in 00 using Peco track myself and am considering cutting the track into scale panels in my yard layout. With the turnouts across the layout the standard track lengths will have to be cut anyway and it seems like an easy additional nod to real life - I am using bullhead rail and C&L plastic fishplates.

 

I shall have to look into the question of the sleepers!

The new C&L 00 gauge flexi tracks are now very much more compatible with Peco code 75 track and have 60' sleeper panels

 

 

The sprues are in 30' lengths with a 12" sleeper at one end

 

 

2 sprues back to back will give you a 60' panel

 

 

As you can see where 2 panels join you have 2 12" sleepers, a notch could be cut in to the top of the rail and thin etched fishplates could ve either soldered or superglued in place. Alternatively you could either cut the new C&L plastic fishplates in half, clean the backs and superglue in place or cut the rails to 60' lengths and use the plastic fishplates as rail joiners

 

45' panels could be made up by removing 6 sleepers from one sprue

 

These sleeper panels are the only ones on the market with keys in the chairs and come in 2 versions, main line (keys all in one direction and single line with alternating keys  

 

 

[Derekstuart]

I'm probably going to regret disagreeing with anyone, based on past experience, but:

 

On 26/12/2020 at 16:33, Hibelroad said:

The answer has to be no as it would inevitably lead to dog legs at each track section joint on anything other than straight track. For similar reasons crossovers and other complex pointwork is often built with long rail lengths in order to get a smooth flow through the formation. 

I'm not going to try and tell you that you're wrong- if that works for you then it's none of my business. But it is certainly not a universally agreed method. Indeed, if it's complex pointwork then you're going to have to cut insulation gaps at various points. What I would agree with is that it's perfectly possible to build un-realistically long sections with a view to cutting the rail once it's secured.

 

12 hours ago, Paul Cram said:

Also the sleeper widths at the join.

Very true. But remember not all regions and not all eras did this. Also if someone is going to this extent then they need to look at whether they had the heavy duty cast chair for the last sleeper.

 

12 hours ago, Paul Cram said:

Don't forget the keys point away from the joint as well.

That's true for a bi-directional line on the flat. On uni-directional the keys are hammered towards the direction of travel.

You will also find they should be hammered in towards the lower end of gradients and towards stations. Of course local policy or requirements could dictate otherwise. Don't forget the track panel end- the key is ALWAYS hammered in towards the rail joint (otherwise there's not enough room for a 4 bolt fishplate).

[Paul Cram]

3 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

Very true. But remember not all regions and not all eras did this. Also if someone is going to this extent then they need to look at whether they had the heavy duty cast chair for the last sleeper.

 

That's true for a bi-directional line on the flat. On uni-directional the keys are hammered towards the direction of travel.

You will also find they should be hammered in towards the lower end of gradients and towards stations. Of course local policy or requirements could dictate otherwise. Don't forget the track panel end- the key is ALWAYS hammered in towards the rail joint (otherwise there's not enough room for a 4 bolt fishplate).

Well we do go to that extent and I think you have misunderstood where I was coming from regarding the key at the joint, we are both saying the same thing hebce the ey needs to point away from the joint regardless of the accerating or braking forces as the fishplate needs to fit.

[Trog]

On 26/12/2020 at 18:09, TheSignalEngineer said:

Short panels were also created by 'recutting' where worn or damaged ends of rails were trimmed and bolt holes redrilled. IIRC it was 15" taken off each end so the length of the rail came down in 2'6" intervals to a minimum length of 45' or the maximum head wear for re-use was reached whichever was sooner.

 

I remember hearing of a panic on the Western Region where rails had been trimmed to get rid of hammered ends, which could also be done by sawing off the end hole and drilling a new inner hole. Shortening the rails had brought the old track circuit bond wire holes in close to the fish plate holes, and after a run by the ultrasonic rail testing train a warning message went out saying something like Aggghh star cracks at every joint from X to Y in the Up Relief!!!

 

The shortest rail I or my colleagues ever found was a glued IBJ about 3' long. Literally weld in one bed plates in the next and the second weld in the bed after that.

 

I believe that the late use of 45'-0" jointed track was something of an LNER thing, often in country areas where there were less staff available to handle 60'-0" rails. Picking a 60'-0" rail up off the ground and lifting it onto a wagon being a twenty man job. While at the time of my retirement I was aware of an ex LNER main line that still had a stretch of 1923 45'-0" railed track, the LNWR had been using 60'-0" rails since the 1890's giving plenty of time for them to filter down into secondary use.

[TheSignalEngineer]

41 minutes ago, Trog said:

I believe that the late use of 45'-0" jointed track was something of an LNER thing, often in country areas where there were less staff available to handle 60'-0" rails. Picking a 60'-0" rail up off the ground and lifting it onto a wagon being a twenty man job. While at the time of my retirement I was aware of an ex LNER main line that still had a stretch of 1923 45'-0" railed track, the LNWR had been using 60'-0" rails since the 1890's giving plenty of time for them to filter down into secondary use.

There was a long stretch of short possibly 45ft rails on the line from Wigan to Southport. They were there within the last 10 years as our grandson was with us when I last rode that way. Very entertaining ride in a Pacer.

 

I remember cover for jobs on the Soho - Perry Barr line where trimming and transposing rails was a virtually continuous weekend job before CWR due to the winding nature of the line. Nice little earner as it entailed disconnecting the track circuits and removing any leads and bonds then drilling a few hole to replace them and restore the track circuits at the end. If there was a good ganger sometimes you could get him to mark the cuts in advance and you could drill the bonding holes at the start of the job.

[DCB]

If you want the right "sound" then notching rails at scale 60ft doesn't work. t.  On the full size two 57ft coaches measure very near 60ft between the first axle of one and the first axle of the next giving that diddle di dum sound over 60 ft rails.  if you use scale 60 ft rails  with tension lock couplers two adjacent 57 ft coaches need an extra 5mm or so track length to get the effect.  On wide rail joint on a resonant bit of baseboard works much better in my experience.   Many branch lines were relaid with heavier longer rail post 1939.   Which of course made them look uneconomic...    as did the painting, It was widely believed that stations were painted the year before passenger services were withdrawn.

[Bernard Lamb]

Tim Lewis was building a model of Coldstream some time ago and he was working to the exact position and configuration of rails and sleepers. Not heard anything for a long time but worth digging out the original topic from the archive if you are interested in the idea of a correct scale model.

Bernard

[Paul Cram]

Hawes is an exact scale model with 45' panels.

[hayfield]

13 hours ago, Derekstuart said:

I'm probably going to regret disagreeing with anyone, based on past experience, but:

 

I'm not going to try and tell you that you're wrong- if that works for you then it's none of my business. But it is certainly not a universally agreed method. Indeed, if it's complex pointwork then you're going to have to cut insulation gaps at various points. What I would agree with is that it's perfectly possible to build un-realistically long sections with a view to cutting the rail once it's secured.

 

At one exhibition I spoke with Len Newman about curves, he said get a piece of rail longer than required, curve it, cut off the ends (which never curve) and you have a curved rail without dog legs.  Some may think this method is wasteful 

 

13 hours ago, Derekstuart said:

 

Very true. But remember not all regions and not all eras did this. Also if someone is going to this extent then they need to look at whether they had the heavy duty cast chair for the last sleeper.

 

That's true for a bi-directional line on the flat. On uni-directional the keys are hammered towards the direction of travel.

You will also find they should be hammered in towards the lower end of gradients and towards stations. Of course local policy or requirements could dictate otherwise. Don't forget the track panel end- the key is ALWAYS hammered in towards the rail joint (otherwise there's not enough room for a 4 bolt fishplate).

 

At rail joints on both plain and in turnouts and crossings, keys are not fitted on the fishplate side of a chair next to a join. Its difficult/ impossible to knock the keys in

 

I have been told there will always be exceptions to these rules as local platelayers were the final abature as to which side the key went .

[Derekstuart]

19 hours ago, Paul Cram said:

Well we do go to that extent and I think you have misunderstood where I was coming from regarding the key at the joint, we are both saying the same thing hebce the ey needs to point away from the joint regardless of the accerating or braking forces as the fishplate needs to fit.

Hello Paul thanks for your clarification. If I may suggest it was a little ambiguous as to whether you meant *just* the keys immediately either side of the fishplate.

 

As for what extent people go to, that's entirely up to them as I wrote above.

 

6 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

At one exhibition I spoke with Len Newman about curves, he said get a piece of rail longer than required, curve it, cut off the ends (which never curve) and you have a curved rail without dog legs.  Some may think this method is wasteful 

 

 

At rail joints on both plain and in turnouts and crossings, keys are not fitted on the fishplate side of a chair next to a join. Its difficult/ impossible to knock the keys in

 

I have been told there will always be exceptions to these rules as local platelayers were the final abature as to which side the key went .

Hello John

 

I'm probably going to regret this too, but I actually find that  very slight doglegs on the outside of tight curves looks right- but before others pile in, I mean VERY slight as this is prototypical (whether for the same reason you've outlined but scaled up or due to force of the wheel set on the outer rail 'straightening' them. I know that won't make me popular for suggesting it, but what's new.

 

You're quite right about the keys immediately adjacent to the fishplates. Paul's post didn't make that clear and I know plenty of people moving to finer track make the mistake of pointing ALL keys towards the centre of a panel. I made the same mistake myself first time.

[hayfield]

Derek  hope you had a good Christmas

 

Making comments on most railway related things is fraught with danger, track being a good example as someone will find an alternative and now we have J chairs to muddy the waters, unless you have photographic evidence all you can hope to do is what was the norm and hope for the best.

 

Then can anybody actually see the items or notice the difference. I like the reply I do it because I can, makes no odds if anyone can see it. Its just I know its there

[martin_wynne]

On 27/12/2020 at 08:30, Siberian Snooper said:

If you use Templot for drawing up your track plan, you can set the panel length, for your chosen prototype and alter for sidings etc. I can't remember whether or not it will do the wider timbers at the joint, if your prototype requires it.

 

 

 

Yes it will.

 

Martin.