Well, I guess I'm sorry I brought this up. I had picked up those profiles, but never really paid much attention to them. All I say at this point is that I have a greater tendency to stumble over rail in my advancing years--I would swear it's higher than it used to be!
I also was trying to justify my railroad using #126 rail for the mainline. So if I use the Rock stuff as a guide, I'm pretty darn close. And indeed, my using #70 pretty much fits the Milwaukee stuff too. When it comes to all the little detail things, like tie plates and especially all the bolts on the switch frogs--you do what you can and try to accomplish what is important to you. I made the argument locally that flex track is better looking then hand laid because of the number of spikes and the tie plates, but I was boo-hoo'ed. Incidentally, I have a photo of a chunk of wood used to shore up a joint bar. On that same section of track, there were new ties being installed without tie plates (late 80's). Also when they took out two rotten ties they sometimes replaced them with only one, laid diagonally. That's branch line, Milw style! As to the cars Pieter, suggests. I'll buy them iff'in they come out--I can't go beyond that. Bob Werre PhotoTraxx On 12/16/11 1:24 PM, David Heine wrote: > > Another way to look at is 0.010" is 10% of 0.100". Would you mind if your > 40' car was 36' or 44'? I would hope so, but again a 10% difference (based > on 40'), albeit much more visible. > > Please note I was just being a devil's advocate with the above and not > saying we need more rail sizes. I'm content working with the sizes > available. Our model rail cross-section is also in general different than > the prototype, which have various cross sections at different points in > time. Technically, this should be included in the weight calculation, but > we normally only measure the rail height. > > IMHO, using different rail heights for different track functions, will > make > more visible difference than the absolute height. > > Many of my favorite railroads did not use tie plates and certainly didn't > need any bonding joints for signals, so in some cases they shouldn't be > included. I do view track as a model as important as a locomotive, if not > more so, so I should do my best with what is available. Model railroading > is a series of compromises, and as much as I'd like to model a logging > branch with rickety undulating track, I know I can't and expect to run > trains on it. I met someone who tried this in On3 once and said it was the > worst mistake he ever made. > > Dave Heine > Easton, PA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <mailto:S-Scale%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:S-Scale%40yahoogroups.com>] On > Behalf Of > Pieter Roos > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:14 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:S-Scale%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: {S-Scale List} Re: Rail height > > Guys; > > Really? I'm all for realism and getting as close as possible to the > prototype, but are we going to obsess over .010 in the height of our rail? > Better have tie plates with the correct number of spikes, rail clips, > "bondings" on rail joints in signaled territory, etc. if you plan to worry > about this discrepancy. > > I would suggest someone insert a strip of .010 styrene under the rail in a > section of track and see if you really notice the difference. > > I'd rather worry that there is no 40' steel 10'6" boxcar with IDE and > diagonal panel roof, nor a plastic PS-1 boxcar which existed in the > tens of > thousands post-war. Yet, we endure... > > Pieter E. Roos > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
