Jump to content
 

FB rail size for C&L concrete sleeper FastTrack?


Recommended Posts

Does anyone have a micrometer handy?

 

I purchased some EM concrete sleeper FastTrack panels for a project.  I saw that C&L sells code 82 FB rail, so I made the assumption that I could use locally sourced code 83 rail and save myself the extra shipping expense (international shipping costs for rail are brutal.)  However, the rail I was hoping to use is very, very snug (too snug, actually) into the sleeper rail clips - the base of the rail seems too wide.

 

Does anyone have a piece of C&L code 82 FB on which they can measure the width of the base?  The code 83 I have here is 0.0785" wide.

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you got the rail from, but modern loose code 83 rail (Micro Engineering, Proto:87 Stores, etc.,)  in the US has the same base width as code 70. That's 0.070" wide. 

 

The old NMRA RP for code 83 set the width you have, but AFAIK, is now only used by Atlas in their flex track.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Does anyone have a micrometer handy?

 

I purchased some EM concrete sleeper FastTrack panels for a project.  I saw that C&L sells code 82 FB rail, so I made the assumption that I could use locally sourced code 83 rail and save myself the extra shipping expense (international shipping costs for rail are brutal.)  However, the rail I was hoping to use is very, very snug (too snug, actually) into the sleeper rail clips - the base of the rail seems too wide.

 

Does anyone have a piece of C&L code 82 FB on which they can measure the width of the base?  The code 83 I have here is 0.0785" wide.

 

Thanks!

Hi Ken,

 

Having already tried this - don't use the generally available Code 83 rail.

 

The railbase is wider and a lot more difficult to thread through them as it causes the chairs to distort.

 

The Code 82 sold by C&L matches the railchairs and goes through without distorting them.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just measured some FB steel rail and the width across the foot is nominally 0.069".


 


Out if interest I have two packs of FB rail here, one from C&L and the other from Excatoscale (from when it was a seperater company) The C&L rail is formed from BS110A steel, while the Exactoscale is BS113A


 


Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

NB The only difference between BS110A and BS113A is the thickness of the web, which is not apparent on the model and will be overscale anyway. If the foot width is only .069 that part is underscale but probably helps it slide into the clips and will not be noticeable except to a vernier!

Regards

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Keith,

 

Thanks for putting the technical explanation to my wordy attempt!

 

Jonathon, you have experienced exactly what I have commented on!

 

I also had Exactoscale rail when I started using the C&L track bases - that was what I already had and was trying to save money by using it!

 

It didn't work and I ended up buying the C&L Code 82 f/b rail to be sure it all went together without splitting the rail chairs.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all!

 

I'm not sure where you got the rail from, but modern loose code 83 rail (Micro Engineering, Proto:87 Stores, etc.,) in the US has the same base width as code 70. That's 0.070" wide.

 

The old NMRA RP for code 83 set the width you have, but AFAIK, is now only used by Atlas in their flex track.

 

Andy

Andy, you hit it - I was salvaging rail out of Atlas flex, we lost our last decent nearby hobby store and I was trying to avoid having to order by mail or trekking to Des Plaines (about an hour drive each way.) I'll bet Atlas was trying to use the same tie base for both code 83 and code 100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience is that the Exactoscale rail is far easier to slide onto the track bases whereas the C&L rail which is more prone to 'stick', requiring more force to slide it into the clips. I've found the C&L rail to be softer and doesn't cut as cleanly (with xuron rail cutters) as the Exactoscale stuff, and is also more prone to rusting.

 

 

 

This makes me think that they are using two different grades of steel. C&L might be using a ledloy (steel/lead alloy) which would reduce wear on the tooling

 

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Towards the end of Exactoscale selling their own items I remember Peter telling me that he and Len had joined forces and put in a combined order for rails to reduce costs. May have only been nickel-silver rather than steel or vice a versa.

 

I use the rail quite a lot and find that if I de-burr and chamfer the ends, I have no problems threading rails on to chairs or Exactoscale track nases

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, a local store has Walthers code 83 flex in stock. Would that have the same oversize foot as the Atlas rail?

 

I'm not sure.  I haven't bought flex track myselfin years. I have the rail in 18" lengths, so cheap shipping, even if if you only need a few pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think currently there might be a bit of a problem with C&L flat bottom rail and the Exactoscale bases, in that the C&L rail is a slightly loose fit into the Exactoscale track bases. I asked Peter about this and he said its something he is looking into, initial thoughts were that the current die (rail) may need repairing. However it may be a case that Exactoscale had their own rail die which had a larger foot. Peter is contacting the company that draws the wire into rail to see if there is another die they have from Exactoscale

 

I did ask if the metal composition of the rail had altered over the years, Peter was unaware of any change. But Len may have sourced rail from a different supplier than he used towards the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...