modelling 75lb flat bottom rail?
-
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm
modelling 75lb flat bottom rail?
I want to model some 75lb flat bottom rail (4 13/16" tall according to my manual). As far as I can work out this should be code 63. Peco make a code 60 ( 3 thou too short), Or I could have code 70 ( 8 thou too tall). No-one is likely to be taking a vernier to this once it is laid, but what will look most suitable? Does anyone have any experience of this, and any suggestions for suppliers other than Peco (code 60) or Proto876 in the US (code 70)?
Connah's Quay Workshop threads: viewforum.php?f=125
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3918
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: modelling 75lb flat bottom rail?
I would recommend the code 70, I rather think that Peco code 60 is their conductor rail which has a very skinny head.
regards
regards
-
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm
Re: modelling 75lb flat bottom rail?
Thanks Keith, I will go for the code70 then. And you are probably the right person to tel me what these ?jack? thingies are that they are using in this photo:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Connah's Quay Workshop threads: viewforum.php?f=125
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: modelling 75lb flat bottom rail?
jon price wrote:I want to model some 75lb flat bottom rail (4 13/16" tall according to my manual).
Hi Jon,
BS.11 1959:
BS-75R and BS-75A 75lb flat-bottom rail is 5.1/16" tall. Scales to code 66 (0.0664").
(-R has vertical sides on the head. -A has 1:20 angled sides on the head)
(75lb bullhead is 5.1/8" tall)
Martin.
40+ years developing Templot. Enjoy using Templot? Join Templot Club. Be a Templot supporter.
-
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm
Re: modelling 75lb flat bottom rail?
Thanks Martin. The drawing I took notes on is not to BS standard, but is a War Department spec. which seems to be roughly the same as the BS11 1905 spec. The BS11 1922 spec matches the 1959 spec you have, but in each case the 1922 has a narrower foot that the 1905. I suspect that a lot depended on where they were obtaining their supplies. In any case I will be using what is available, so it will be code 70!
Connah's Quay Workshop threads: viewforum.php?f=125
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:25 pm
Re: modelling 75lb flat bottom rail?
Jon,
One further very practical consideration here. You should also think about the width of the rail foot. I have previously used American Code 55 rail for flat bottom track in p87 and found that the rail foot was too wide to allow adjacent rails to sit alongside each other at the correct check rail and flangeway clearances. This required some filing away of part of the foot to get everything to gauge, and arguably the foot looks a little out of proportion as well.
Just something else to think about!
Regards
Geraint
One further very practical consideration here. You should also think about the width of the rail foot. I have previously used American Code 55 rail for flat bottom track in p87 and found that the rail foot was too wide to allow adjacent rails to sit alongside each other at the correct check rail and flangeway clearances. This required some filing away of part of the foot to get everything to gauge, and arguably the foot looks a little out of proportion as well.
Just something else to think about!
Regards
Geraint
Geraint Hughes
Cromford & High Peak in P4
Danish Railways in P87
Cromford & High Peak in P4
Danish Railways in P87
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3918
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: modelling 75lb flat bottom rail?
and found that the rail foot was too wide to allow adjacent rails to sit alongside each other at the correct check rail and flangeway clearances.
That is the usual situation for all but the smallest FB rails. Applies equally to the prototype.
Regards
Return to “Track and Turnouts”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 1 guest