U.S. Prototype track and formation dimensions

[Old Gringo]

U.S. Prototype track and formation dimensions - The foundations to a good model, how did you discover them?

Over the last three decades, I've become more interested in the railway and its structures, just as much as enjoying the trains that run upon it.

Like a few other 'Permanent way nuts', the first thing I study on a model railway is the track.  How accurate has the road-bed formation been modelled and would the bridges, cuts and fills support the trains running on them.  Does the railway sit well in the chosen landscape?  Has the track been laid and ballasted prototypically? Is the rail profile / tie spacing relationship correct?  Are the distances between the track and the associated line-side equipment correct?  What colours have been used to finish the model?  In short, how real does it look?

One of the gripes I have with some modellers of the 'British railway scene' is that not enough of them consider these important dimensions and details, before starting to build a layout and hence a number of models don't get past the first (or last) of the previous questions.

Now, since becoming more interested in U.S. / Canadian railways, I found that in general the attention to trackwork and lineside detail was better.  However, to begin with, I knew very few of the answers to any of my own test questions, so I couldn't really say what was accurate or judge what was prototypically correct.

So, following on from one of the first posts in the introduction by our Group leader, Pete (Trisonic), I understood that one of the aims of the Group was "to exchange information on U.S. models and the prototype and especially to offer help to those just beginning to model U.S. practice, to provide answers and where we can, point them in the right direction".

Therefore, the subject of this Topic is;  If I was starting out and new to modelling the railroads of the North American continent, where would I find the general track and formation dimensions upon which to start building my model railway layout?



Answer: Why not right here on RMweb U.S. Group?

In fact if you're modelling the current U.S. scene, the first two sets of contemporary dimensions that you could use can be found in the topic post entitled U.S. Shortline specifications.  The thread has been transferred across into the Group Forum by Pete and besides the Black River specifications for any new construction, there is also a reply from Dave1905, which contains a wealth of detail on current Union Pacific standards, for any new additions to their system.  I think pretty much every dimension is contained in the set of PDFs, however, I haven't yet checked them all out.

So maybe all my questions regarding current standards have been answered and if you're a rookie modelling today's scene U.S. Shortline specifications.is a great starting point.

[Old Gringo]

But hang on,, . . what were the 'standards' sixty years ago in the steam / diesel transition period?  Or a century ago, in fact were there any common standards we can apply to our models?

In 1950, for example, many of the largest railroads were beginning to use rails weighing 130 / 131lbs per yard (Code 83) on their mainlines, yet others were only just relaying their routes with the American Railway Engineering Association's standard, of 115 lb. rails and all with staggered joints on the generally accepted treated timber tie measuring 7 ins. x 9 ins. x 8 ft. 6 ins.

However, nearly every Railroad seems to have had different standards. Some like the A.T.S.F. used 3200 (7 ins. x 9 ins. x 9 foot) ties per mile beneath their heaviest main line rails, whilst part of the 'Rock Island' still had Class A sections with 3150 (6 ins. x 8 ins. x 8 foot) ties under 90lb rail.  In spurs and sidings on the Canadian National 2672 ties per mile were permitted beneath 85lb or 100lb rail, but 3229 ties were specified on the main lines under the new 130lb rails. This information is from World's Railways, 1950 - 51, published by Sampson Low.

And around the turn of the 19^th/ 20th Century, the only constant standard I can find appearing was the rail length, generally 39 feet, for ease of transport on 40 foot gondolas, but 30 foot rails would have existed in many places.  Even as late as 1950, there were still 33 foot rails in use on some roads like the Gulf, Mobile & Ohio (75lb), Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (Monon Road, 90lb), Denver & Rio Grande Western and Southern Pacific secondary routes. The DRGW also had some 30 foot rails too and 4½% of their main line was under 80lb in weight, whilst a just few miles had been laid with 133lb rail. (information from source as above).

Then there's the standards employed for the construction of the formation, road-bed and drainage ditches.  I assume that the American Railway Engineering Association laid down some recommendations for new construction?  Did this happen at the time when the railways of the U.S.A. were under the control of the United States Railroad Administration (1919)?

Over the last few years, I've collected some of the answers, but is there one place that U.S. modellers can go for a set of dimensions to build their transition era railroads with?

Thanks in advance for any answers, John.
 

[Prof Klyzlr]

But hang on,, . . what were the ‘standards’ sixty years ago in the steam / diesel transition period? Or a century ago, were there any common standards we can apply to our models?

 

SNIP

 

Over the last few years, I’ve collected some of the answers, but is there one place that U.S. modellers can go for a set of dimensions to build their transition era railroads with?

 

Thanks in advance for any answers, John.

 

 

 

 

Dear John,

 

You've answered your own question. AFAIK, prior to the 1900s, every US RR basically followed whatever the CME thought was good engineering practise that particular morning at breakfast. Many such engineers were expats from various locations around the UK and Europe, so brought their own "baggage" to the party, adapted to use whatever materials were available...

 

Examples of this abound, have a read up on the guys who pushed the Transcon accross the US, and met at Pomentory Utah,

or the tale of Rogers as he pushed the Can Pac over Rogers Pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Pass

 

And for the Narrow Gaugers, the story of George Mansfield, the main man behind the Maine 2'ers,

http://www.mainenarrowgauge.org/history/maine-two-foot-railroads/

 

is an eye opener in terms of how and why various "established Railroad engineering principles" winked into being...

 

Want to "get it right"? Then focusing on the original and/or parent railroad, and the specs thereof, really is your first port of call. Check in with the Historical and Technical Societies, and check in with any "paper meets" that offer old RR documents...

 

No paperwork available? Then online resources such as GoogleMaps/Earth can still be helpful. Locations where railroads interchange bring pairs of "foreign roads" side-by-side, where the distinctive ballast and subroadbed profiles, rail and sleeper dimensions, and other details are thrown into stark contrast. (Even ballast colors can give echoes of "_this_ RR was ex-UP, while _that_ one was ATSF...")

 

Hope this helps...

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

PS John, is there a particular RR and era you are interested in?

[dave1905]

I pay minimal attention to the profile of the roadbed etc. I would be willing to bet the majority of US modelers do the same. The US focus is much more on the operational aspects. To fit the operation I want in the space I have there is no way to accomodate the proper switch spacing and roadbed contours. Just won't fit.

 

So I have to choose between compressing the roadbed and track arrangements or omitting a lot of the track and operation. Roadbed detail lost.

[trisonic]

Different strokes for different folks.

 

Best, Pete.

[autocoach]

Until the 1970's every major US and Canadian (and Mexican) railroad had their own standard practices (Canada and Mexico still do). Other than 4' 8.5" and flat bottom rail, the rest of the details differed. Some of the major US railroads were each larger than all of the British rail network at its height. UP and SP generally followed the "Harriman" standards from the period of common ownership in the early 20th century into the 1950's.

 

The terrains and practices vary quite widely. The Southern Pacific in California just does not look like the Pennsylvania in Ohio. In California, there were visible differences between Southern Pacific, Western Pacific and ATSF rights of way. Each railroad had its own standards and large engineering departments to set and design to those standards.

 

The WW1 era United States Railroad Administration had almost all of it's impact on rolling stock and anything else east of the Mississippi on the smaller roads. The western lines had little to do with it.

 

I am the oddball yank who actually enjoys British prototype (well prior to 1948 that is.) But I also dabble in Southern Pacific and the narrow gauge North Pacific Coast.

[BR60103]

There is a story that tie spacing was settled on an early railroad when the tracklaying foreman asked how far apart he was told "far enough for the workman to get his shovel between".

 

 

(punctuation has been left out as an exercise for the student)

[dave1905]

Many track standards are set by the FRA and are used to determine maximum track speed.

[signalmaintainer]

There is a story that tie spacing was settled on an early railroad when the tracklaying foreman asked how far apart he was told "far enough for the workman to get his shovel between".

 

 

(punctuation has been left out as an exercise for the student)

 

While that may be lore, it's true that distance between the ties ideally allows space for a No. 2 shovel to fit in the crib. And as every signalman knows, a No. 2 shovel is every assistant signalman's best friend!

[signalmaintainer]

Until the 1970's every major US and Canadian (and Mexican) railroad had their own standard practices (Canada and Mexico still do). Other than 4' 8.5" and flat bottom rail, the rest of the details differed. Some of the major US railroads were each larger than all of the British rail network at its height. UP and SP generally followed the "Harriman" standards from the period of common ownership in the early 20th century into the 1950's.

 

The terrains and practices vary quite widely. The Southern Pacific in California just does not look like the Pennsylvania in Ohio. In California, there were visible differences between Southern Pacific, Western Pacific and ATSF rights of way. Each railroad had its own standards and large engineering departments to set and design to those standards.

 

The WW1 era United States Railroad Administration had almost all of it's impact on rolling stock and anything else east of the Mississippi on the smaller roads. The western lines had little to do with it.

 

I am the oddball yank who actually enjoys British prototype (well prior to 1948 that is.) But I also dabble in Southern Pacific and the narrow gauge North Pacific Coast.

 

In general, I think you're correct. But I'm wondering about the 1970s. What happened then in re: U.S. railroad engineering that changed how things have been done since?

[Old Gringo]

Thanks Prof., Dave1905, Ken, David, Paul and Pete for the interest and all the valid comments.

 

It's obviously a complex subject and I can well appreciate that in 1950 the C.N. and C.P. each had mileages greater than that of the U.K. and at least another eight U.S. roads had mileages above or close to half of the British network (SP, NYC, MP, PR, C&NW, CMSP&P, UP and my own favourite the AT&SF had the largest at over 13,000 miles).

 

Maybe it's going to be difficult to help someone starting out?

 

But, you've got me asking a few more questions. When was the American Railway Engineering Association established? and what date did the FRA (which I assume is the Federal Railroad Association ?) start taking an interest in speeds and tracks? And most important, what's the width across a Number 2 shovel?

 

All the best, John.

[dave1905]

What date did the FRA (which I assume is the Federal Railroad Association ?) start taking an interest in speeds and tracks?

 

From its founding in 1966.

 

However the FRA standards are minimally modelable since they address things like allowable deviation for crosslevel or gauge, number of defective ties in a row, etc. They are available on web in various places. They do not address shape of the right of way or drainage features, etc.

 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfr213_main_02.tpl

 

The major US railroads usually have information on their websites for companies that are interested in developing industrial parks that have drawings of right of way specifications. That is probably more in line with what I think you intended.

 

http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/track/index.shtml

[2ManySpams]

Is a No.2 Shovel a similar sort of thing to a "Sky Hook"?

[shortliner]

No, silly boy! A "sky-hook" is what you take your jacket off, and then hang your "number 2 shovel" on, at the end of your shift! . That way you know where to find it next morning!

[2ManySpams]

Smashing Jack

[shortliner]

What - with your number 2 shovel? :blink:

[dave1905]

Is a No 2 shovel any shovel you use to shovel "number 2"?

[shortliner]

Many years ago I had a boss named Schlichtinger - I'm sure you can imagine how it was mis-pronounced to by the troops! I don't remember ever seeing him use a shovel of any size!

[autocoach]

FRA=Federal Railway Administration. An arm of the US Department of Transportation (DOT).