P4 Scale Rail Length

[Torper]

Blimey!  A long long time ago I used to make track using the ply-and-rivet method.  In those distant days there were no functional chairs available, although there were expensive cosmetic ones that were extremely difficult to fit to p&r track.  So for quite few people, a neat blob of solder where the rail was soldered to the rivet served as a chair, and once smothered with paint and looked at from the normal viewing distance, it actually served quite well.  Certainly it avoided the problem of having the keys the right (or wrong) way round, and having read all the above I cannot help but think that it had much to commend it. 

 

DT

[hayfield]

On 27/12/2020 at 11:40, hayfield said:

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  

 

 

 

One other thing about the 60' panels I forgot to mention with the new C&L base is the sleeper spacing reduces at the panel ends

 

But I expect this also will not be noticed at normal viewing distances and lost on most modellers

[Trog]

On 28/12/2020 at 17:13, Derekstuart said:

...........

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........

 

As the two rails are linked together by the sleepers both rails have a tendency to thre'penny bit in Bullhead or 50p in Flatbottom, as the rails straighten under traffic. An effect that shows up at the joints as they are the least stiff part of the rail. Myself I found that I could reduce this problem by decreasing the sleeper spacing, using a CWR standard ballast profile and using 120'-0" rails. However the use of LWR (jointed rails over 60'-0" in length) was banned a few years before I retired, due to problems caused by those clever enough to see the benefits of less joints, but too thick/lazy to do anything about the greater thermal stresses.

[Derekstuart]

On 30/12/2020 at 21:33, Trog said:

 

As the two rails are linked together by the sleepers both rails have a tendency to thre'penny bit in Bullhead or 50p in Flatbottom, as the rails straighten under traffic. An effect that shows up at the joints as they are the least stiff part of the rail. Myself I found that I could reduce this problem by decreasing the sleeper spacing, using a CWR standard ballast profile and using 120'-0" rails. However the use of LWR (jointed rails over 60'-0" in length) was banned a few years before I retired, due to problems caused by those clever enough to see the benefits of less joints, but too thick/lazy to do anything about the greater thermal stresses.

That's interesting, thankyou.

 

It was my original perception that this also affected the inner rail too, but I was persuaded that this was my imagination and only affected the outer rail. My biggest experience of tight curves is the Esk Valley, having walked much of it over the course of a summer (as a guest of an official British Rail working group).

[hayfield]

Derek

 

I think at times we look at things with a modellers eye and perspective, whilst modern track is laid with high tech machines using GPS how many old photos especially on branch lines where the track is a bit unkempt. 

[5050]

A friend and well-known P4 modeller with a large continuous layout (1950' BR steam) that has appeared in print started using scale length track panels but discovered that the almost inevitable thrupenny/20p'ing effect on curves radically reduced the running qualities.  Relaying with long rail lengths and 'artificial' joints completely cured this and the layout is now the epitome of good running with long trains.

[johndon]

On the P4 layout I'm building, the rail is cut in to the equivalent of 120' lengths and then the real joins between each piece are staggered by 60' so every real join with a functional fishplate is opposite a fake join so, apart from where some turnouts are fitted and on some straights, there are never two real joins opposite each other which has avoided the kinks...

 

John

 

[johndon]

Further to my last post, by way of an example of what I'm talking about, have a look at the photo below and the second rail up from the bottom which shows a full 60' panel but note that the joins between the individual pieces of rail are staggered.