3rd Rail for Code 75 track

[Xerces Fobe2]

With the growth in 3rd rail and 3/4 rail modeling with many modelers using Code 75 track is there now a market for Peco or another' manufacturer to produce a bespoke Code 75 3rd rail system complete with end ramps and protection boards?

 

At the present time most of use modify the Peco Code 100 solution however this involves a lot of work and does not always yield a good result especially when running steam locos with brake rods over electrified tracks.

 

What do other RMweb members think about this idea and is there a big enough market for it?

 

Nigel.

[HAB]

If you mean "ready to run", then I suspect the answer is "no chance" - as a fraction of the tons of track PECO shift around the world, the 3rd rail market is infinitesimally small.  They are not even interested in a scale 00 system (because the market is UK only) - all their track is firmly HO as debated elsewhere.   And I talk about PECO only because they are the biggest, but the same would be true for others. 

 

Even worse, the variety of ramp configurations possible is infinite - especially in station areas.

 

If you mean kit based components, there is already a fair bit available - including the PECO Individulay. I use the S4 Society Rail and pots, plus the C+L bits and pieces - my own efforts are described here:-

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/71121-third-rail-experiments/

 

It is a bit of a challenge to fit any third rail to PECO track as the sleeps as so far from scale - both in terms of length and spacing.

 

Hope that helps for now, good luck!

[hayfield]

C+L supply parts for 3rd & 4th rail system http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_347_360

[Colin parks]

Hi Nigel,

 

Howard is right - there are so many configurations of third rail components that a ready to lay system would be nigh on impossible, so it looks like a case of status quo for now. Lets face it, we haven't even got a ready to lay bullhead track system or British flat-bottom track yet! 

 

I have successfully  combined (for my humble representation of the third rail) Peco components combined with SMP track, which at least gives the correct spacing/intervals of sleepers/insulating chairs.  Peco's own track does not, as the sleepers are too close together. ( I suspect that the Peco third rail is under-size for main line electrification too, as further twist in the story.)

 

Peco could produce side-protection boards to fit their own Individulay third rail components though.  C&L do supply parts for side-protection boards as Hayfield said.  How robust these are - I do not know and have never seen a picture of any fitted to a third-rail layout.  (Have you fitted yours yet Howard?!)

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Miss Prism]

( I suspect that the Peco third rail is under-size for main line electrification too, as further twist in the story.)

 

Peco's IL-1 'conductor rail' is I think their old FB-3X, and not bad (at code 60) for 100 or 106 lb/yard conductor rail height, but it's foot is too narrow to look like real conductor rail. There's still a lot of the older 106lb/yard stuff out there on the prototype. LT and many of the heavier-used SR lines have used 150lb/yard section for a considerable time, which, at 'code 73 x code 73' in 4mm, is a lot chunkier. (The really modern stuff is the flimsy 16.5kg/m ASC, but that's another story.)

 

IL-1 could be used on Scalefour pots with a bit of 10 thou base packing to get the conductor top height correct, but ideally would require an alternative cradle etch to secure the rail reasonably.

[Gwiwer]

Personally I don't see there being enough of a demand for a whole series of 3rd rail track and related gubbins to be commercially viable.  We have had numerous SR third-rail electrics in recent years (Cep, MLV, EPB, Vep, Bil, Bel and class 73) but based upon the comments around this and other sites, plus the discounts now offered for many of these items notwithstanding they are into their second run in many cases, it seems sales haven't entirely matched hopes.

 

I have Peco Individualay Code 60 rail ready and waiting to lay as conductor rail to my Code 75 running rail.  It's not perfect in that it is running-rail profile with a flat wide foot rather than true H-profile but it is approximately in scale and the inexperienced eye of most observers will never know the difference.  

 

With the different positions of shoe gear between the brands as well (compare a 2Bil and an MLV to see what I mean) even a fraction of a millimetre could mean loss of contact or worse loss of a pick-up shoe when things don't quite match as we'd like.  Until we get one standard across all manufacturers and fine scale tolerances on all models I see the suggestion as being worthy but holding potentially very irritating flaws.

[HAB]

 

...

 C&L do supply parts for side-protection boards as Hayfield said.  How robust these are - I do not know and have never seen a picture of any fitted to a third-rail layout.  (Have you fitted yours yet Howard?!)

 

 

 

Yes - remiss of me not to post a pic!

 

Here are a couple of shots - just taken in haste and only afterwards did I notice that the juice rail is displaced: I won't be fixing it until all else is done.  BTW, in this shot you can see the S4 socs / Exactoscale-C&L Ramp Pot (under the ramp!)

 

 

This one shows a finished job and one "in progress"

 

 

Fair to say that if you take care they are robust - I solder the bracket to a brass pin which I glue into a hole in the sleeper / baseboard.  They are not a two minute job, but a lot quicker than hand balling the whole job!

 

Hope that helps,

[Colin parks]

That looks superb Howard!

 

Re. ready to lay third rail with or without expertly installed side-protection boards.  Gwiwer has raised the point about RTR manufacturer's standards.  Here is a case in point: Hornby do not seem to regard the third rail as an option their customers might take seriously. 

 

 

 

 

The photo shows a Hornby 2 BIL motor bogie with no alterations at all.  The collector shoes are set at approx.  31.5mm centres in stead of a nominal 29.5mm.  They overhang the third rail on my layout which has Peco components set, as far as possible with my limited skills, to scale dimensions.  The Hornby shoe beams are set so that the  collector shoes are slightly under 1mm above the running rail level.   This means that the shoes are at exactly the same height as the third rail- a recipe  for disaster!

 

Colin 

[FNM600]

Personally I don't see there being enough of a demand for a whole series of 3rd rail track and related gubbins to be commercially viable.  We have had numerous SR third-rail electrics in recent years (Cep, MLV, EPB, Vep, Bil, Bel and class 73) but based upon the comments around this and other sites, plus the discounts now offered for many of these items notwithstanding they are into their second run in many cases, it seems sales haven't entirely matched hopes.

 

I have Peco Individualay Code 60 rail ready and waiting to lay as conductor rail to my Code 75 running rail.  It's not perfect in that it is running-rail profile with a flat wide foot rather than true H-profile but it is approximately in scale and the inexperienced eye of most observers will never know the difference.  

 

With the different positions of shoe gear between the brands as well (compare a 2Bil and an MLV to see what I mean) even a fraction of a millimetre could mean loss of contact or worse loss of a pick-up shoe when things don't quite match as we'd like.  Until we get one standard across all manufacturers and fine scale tolerances on all models I see the suggestion as being worthy but holding potentially very irritating flaws.  ( Bold added by FNM600)

  Well  there were precise standards about the Height above the running rail and the Distance from running rail by the British Model Railway Standard Bureau.

    I personally acquired an original copy from e-Bay which is dated 1950... even before the NEM norms were even being conceived and MOROP was yet to be founded in 1953 !

 

  These were presumibly based on the top contact sistems of 3rd rail, the most common type in GB. Most of it was and is between South of the Thames and the Channel (Southern Railway/Region) but also smaller networks in Merseyside and Tyneside.

There are no current NEM norms on the subject.  There are/were many standards for 3^rd rail in the prototype.  For example most German S-Bahn uses Manchester-Bury stile side-contact rail and in practice most 3^rd rail mileage in Europe on mainline railways is concentrated in Southern England.

It would be presumibly NEM 2xx next to the standards for overhead wire electrification. Unfortunatly because of persistant Euro-sceptictism, ironically concentrated in 3^rd rail SR territory (Boo!), has resulted in not having been a British affiliation with MOROP and a means of playing an active part in shaping these NEM norms! In practice European wide modified BRMSB in a more sistematic way.

 

Back to BMRSB :

These are the specified measurements:

OUTSIDE THIRD RAIL

Ref. Letter              Gauge                   Height above rail running rail               Distance from running rail *

 

A                      future N 9mm ?

B                      H0 16.5mm                            1.50mm 0.059”                           4.00mm 0.160”

C                      00 16.5mm                            1.50mm 0.059”                           5.00mm 0.197”

D                      EM 18.0mm                           1.50mm 0.059”                           5.00mm 0.197”

D1                 EMF 18.0mm                            1.50mm 0.059”                           5.00mm 0.197”

E                       future S gauge ?

F                      0 32.0mm                               2.00mm 0.079”                           9.00mm 0.354”

F1                    0 32.0mm  Fine scale             2.00mm 0.079”                           9.00mm 0.354”

G                      I  45.0mm                               3.00mm 0.119”                         14.00mm 0.551”

* (measured from the inside of running rail to the centre of conductor rail)

 

Reference page 6 of the BRMSB Standard Dimensions 1950 . Originally sold for 1/- or 5np in today's money!

 

It is interesting that the standard specifies both metric and Imperial measurements in an age that Metrication was many years in the future! Either pioneering or for the benefit of foreign Modellers and manufacturers of the period !

 

It is noticed that, contrary to popular belief, there is also British H0 which is fully specified just as much as 00 (Equivalent Prototype Gauge in Feet as 4.71' instead of 4.12' for 00)!  Yes in the day of large motors!

For example these standards specify a Centre to Centre, Straight Running Roads for double track of... 40mm 1.575” and for Centre to Centre, Sidings of 50mm 1.970” !

 

   The tragedy of the British Modelling scene, espescially for the commercial models, but also the scratch builder is that British manufacturers totally ignored these standards and each kept their own rather coarse mutually incompatible ones (then mainly Hornby-Dublo of Liverpool, Triang of Margate and Trix-Twin Railway) and the modellers and the mainstream model railway press did nothing to campaign for such standards to be adopted and boicotting and naming manufacturers who did not comply! . Many serious modellers applied a lot of ingenuity in scratch building in a rather individualistic way to ofter very high standards better than the trade but with general reciprocal incompatibility of stock and layouts as it can be seen at clubs and exibitions. For example the proliferation of strange standards such as Protofour, EM, 18.83 bla bla!  A nightmare!

 

Sadly the big boys (today Bachmann and Triang Hornby no longer British but Chinese) are carrying on with this behaviour or are going for the lowest common denominator such as the horrible Triang Tension-lock harpoons that have so much contributed to make British model trade a laughing stock abroad together with overscale 00! Thankfully here NEM362 pockets help a bit for the former!

 

Now we have problems with standards collector shoes as one would like to have working 3^rd rail complete with sparks at the shoes and multi train control like one does with overhead sistems!

[FNM600]

Peco's IL-1 'conductor rail' is I think their old FB-3X, and not bad (at code 60) for 100 or 106 lb/yard conductor rail height, but it's foot is too narrow to look like real conductor rail. There's still a lot of the older 106lb/yard stuff out there on the prototype. LT and many of the heavier-used SR lines have used 150lb/yard section for a considerable time, which, at 'code 73 x code 73' in 4mm, is a lot chunkier. (The really modern stuff is the flimsy 16.5kg/m ASC, but that's another story.)

 

IL-1 could be used on Scalefour pots with a bit of 10 thou base packing to get the conductor top height correct, but ideally would require an alternative cradle etch to secure the rail reasonably.

   I am not sure, but here I am enclosing a picture taken last summer 2014 of a local station Tooting-Bec London with a current dual-voltage EMU running from 3rd rail with 750V DC.

To me it looks alright for size of rail for code 60 next to 113lb/yd (BR's weird idea of flat bottom (Vignoles) rail to replace perfectly good bullhead!) or  UIC60kg/m as a result of all the caos in replacing of the Hatfield crash in 2001. UIC60 is about code 83 (Edited mistake by FNM600: it should be code 75)!   Why didn't BR go straitght for UIC sizes in 1st place 50 years ago and then BSC would have had an export  market for rail and perhaps BSC (Workington to be precise) would be still with us! Instead rail for Railtrack came from Lucchini in Brescia also the local HQ of (Triang)-Hornby (Limby & RivaHornby) but mainly a warehouse of Chinese imports.

 

   Presumibly there a lot of die hard 4mm  fans with lots of inherited stock such as this:

http://www.tri-angrailways.org.uk/southern.html  and this  http://img.chem.ucl.ac.uk/dublo/d63a/d63l2.htm ?!

 

  As I have read elsewhere, evidently PECO Streamline in built to 1:87 3.5mm/ft with sleeper spacing to 1:87 scale so may be that their 3rd rail is built to match.  Although the South of England still has the largest 3rd rail network, there are others elsewhere though never as extensive in mileage.  

 Actually the few former Italian and French examples were top contact as SR, but with wider spacing than BMRSB's recomended ones due to loading gauge espescially near rail level. 

 

  Honestly I think PECO has done a good job for the average modeller and is British Made not imports as the big boys a bit... cowboys!

  Going OT the same for their SeTrack which is miles better than the ex-Series 6 now Triang, Limby, RivaHornby, bla, bla! It is made in EU at competitive prices compared to imports! 

 I wonder what will be the implications for NEM standard and compatibility!  Same as overhead wire's polygonation?! (Wide and narrow)! See NEM 201 about it!

[Nick Holliday]

  Well  there were precise standards about the Height above the running rail and the Distance from running rail by the British Model Railway Standard Bureau.

    I personally acquired an original copy from e-Bay which is dated 1950... even before the NEM norms were even being conceived and MOROP was yet to be founded in 1953 !

 

  These were presumibly based on the top contact sistems of 3rd rail, the most common type in GB. Most of it was and is between South of the Thames and the Channel (Southern Railway/Region) but also smaller networks in Merseyside and Tyneside.

Whilst this is interesting, I don't think that BMRSB were actually scaling any prototypical third rail installation.  At the time of these standards (1950) there was a considerable body of modellers using an outside third rail for pick up, rather than using the completely unprototypical Hornby Dublo centre third rail, as insulated two-rail systems were in their infancy.  They often used brass sleepers with the outside rail easily insulated from them.  These standards are for working pick ups, to ensure compatibility between layouts.  Note that the distance between rails is the same for both OO and EM, so although the relationship is maintained, the distance between third rails overall is different for each gauge.

[FNM600]

Whilst this is interesting, I don't think that BMRSB were actually scaling any prototypical third rail installation.  At the time of these standards (1950) there was a considerable body of modellers using an outside third rail for pick up, rather than using the completely unprototypical Hornby Dublo centre third rail, as insulated two-rail systems were in their infancy.  They often used brass sleepers with the outside rail easily insulated from them.  These standards are for working pick ups, to ensure compatibility between layouts.  Note that the distance between rails is the same for both OO and EM, so although the relationship is maintained, the distance between third rails overall is different for each gauge.

   Interesting what you say about BMRSB regarding 3rd rail.  So at least for some parts of GB, outside 3rd rail is at least more realistic than what those cowboys of the big commercial boys peddled to modellers.  True, a lot of 3rd rail and overhead wiring is only figurative as it is hard to have made to scale size and practically working but standards are required.

 

  However as the picture below shows STANDARDS for interchangeability are needed,  Gone are the days of manufacturer's lock in as there is no way a single manufacturer can supply every concevable model! 

 Sadly BRMSB seem dead (Any news about it?)  but http://www.morop.eu/en/idf/index.html who make the NEM standards is alive and kicking so I believe this is where standards shoud be drafted !  Otherwise lets get the big ( cow)boys  (currently  mainly Hornby of Margate AngloChina and Bachmann and Heljan from Legoland plus tiny Vitrains (former Lima employees) thinking of producing a BR/SNCF class 92)  to get their act together !

 

That looks superb Howard!

 

Re. ready to lay third rail with or without expertly installed side-protection boards.  Gwiwer has raised the point about RTR manufacturer's standards.  Here is a case in point: Hornby do not seem to regard the third rail as an option their customers might take seriously. 

 

 

IMG_6991.JPG

 

 

The photo shows a Hornby 2 BIL motor bogie with no alterations at all.  The collector shoes are set at approx.  31.5mm centres in stead of a nominal 29.5mm.  They overhang the third rail on my layout which has Peco components set, as far as possible with my limited skills, to scale dimensions.  The Hornby shoe beams are set so that the  collector shoes are slightly under 1mm above the running rail level.   This means that the shoes are at exactly the same height as the third rail- a recipe  for disaster!

 

Colin 

       Well, this picture of a bogie with collector shoes is rather eloquent and says it all!

  And frankly it is time that you lot from euro-scepticaland /SR start get the act together by joining MOROP in order to shape a relevant NEM norm on collector shoes whether dummy or/and working!

   After all it is in your part of the world that there lots of them!

The rest of GB, Europe and world doesn't really know what they are except for some metros. Also in many parts of the world even  metro/underground routes too use overhead wire! 

 

 I haven't got hold of PECO's hardware, but does it follow BRMSB spacings or is it left to the modeller espescially for lateral distance?

[FNM600]

Personally I don't see there being enough of a demand for a whole series of 3rd rail track and related gubbins

OMISSIS

With the different positions of shoe gear between the brands as well (compare a 2Bil and an MLV to see what I mean) even a fraction of a millimetre could mean loss of contact or worse loss of a pick-up shoe when things don't quite match as we'd like.  Until we get one standard across all manufacturers and fine scale tolerances on all models I see the suggestion as being worthy but holding potentially very irritating flaws.

   Since  my post #12 dated 13 June 2015 - 17:55  about the NEM standards, or to be precise their current lack of them, about 3rd rail and the need for them I browsed in the NMRA standards from across the pond and interestingly they do have a standard for the 3rd rail's position.

 See http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-5.pdf and it is their mandatory standard S-5 Traction power collection which covers both overhead wire and 3rd rail (both currently rather rare on their prototypes). 

 The position of the 3rd rail is specified as Distance from the centre line (center as NMRA calls it) of the 3rd rail to the inner face of the running rail (gage rail as NMRA calls it)  it)  and the Height of the top of the 3rd rail above the top of the running rail.  It is specified in the same way as in the BRMSB standards. 

 

Just the figures are different which for  H0 1:87 3.5mm/ft are:

 

 BRSMB      D= 4.0mm       H= 1.5mm  

 NMRA S-5 D= 7.9mm (!)   H=1.6mm

 

  I am amazed about the difference!  I haven't checked prototype's standards (assuming a particular prototype is followed) but I assume that it is due to the very large width of N. American rolling stock even near rail level. 

 

 But at least there is a standard and presumibly at least Bachmann of USA origins (really Chinese nowardays!) of the big cowboys should be aware of it! It scales up to 687mm or 2'3" in old Imperial or still current Yanky units !  It seems a bit wide for SR 3rd rail! ...but may be... a need for dual standard like the poligonation of European overhead wire standard NEM 201  ?

 

 Any comments ?

[FNM600]

Whilst this is interesting, I don't think that BMRSB were actually scaling any prototypical third rail installation.  At the time of these standards (1950) there was a considerable body of modellers using an outside third rail for pick up, rather than using the completely unprototypical Hornby Dublo centre third rail, as insulated two-rail systems were in their infancy.  They often used brass sleepers with the outside rail easily insulated from them.  These standards are for working pick ups, to ensure compatibility between layouts.  Note that the distance between rails is the same for both OO and EM, so although the relationship is maintained, the distance between third rails overall is different for each gauge.

 

 

  Regarding differences in EM and OO spacings... I agree about the different overall distances... being strange as the distance D should be altered... but I leave it to 4mm brigade to sort out their crazy system(s) even if popular with the Islanders as a S.African model shop puts it in good English!

 Like DCC, either let us use NMRA or draft a NEM standard which really would be of interest espescially to SR fans. NEM might also perhaps consider the side contact such as the old Manchester-Bury example in UK similar to various S-Bahn standards which use one of the NEM's languages! 

 

  Any comments!

[Colin parks]

Apologies for not noticing this topic was still active FNM600 et al.

 

There is some good information in these posts.  The most intriguing being Mersey507003's conversion of a model to have working 3rd rail pick-ups. Pictures please!  How does this work with gaps in the 3rd rail over pointwork I wonder?  

 

FNM's table of standards in interesting. The point being made about manufacturer's standards really applies to the height of the pick up shoes on models.  It turned out that the Hornby 2 BIL's pick up shoes were moulded under the shoe beams rather than behind, which caused the problem. Pick up shoes should be set at 29.4mm centres for scale modelling.  For 00 gauge, the  BMRSB standards would have the shoe centres and third rails at 26.5mm if I am reading the table correctly.  Not that it would be a good idea for manufacturers to do that! (As far as I am aware, they never have.)

 

Colin