Dick really put a good opinion. I think what I fail to explain is I believe for economic consideration some RR purposely did not replace in some area the light weight rail as the engine size increase over time on their roster. Either they were limiting which engine would go where and also maximum speed or use a buffer cars to access industrial sidings. In case of some MOW and possibly engine storage tracks, I don't think the weight limit/axle was necessarily respected.
Simon -----Original Message----- From: Richard Karnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:51 AM To: S Scale Subject: Re: [S-Scale Modeling] terminal code T Larson wrote: > I'm planning a module with code 100 mainline, code 83 siding, leading to > an engine terminal for light steamers, and 1st generation diseasals. > Would code 70 make sense for engine terminal, or is that too light? Ted (and others) -- The size of rail you need in your engine terminal is related to the axle loading of your heaviest locomotive. While you don't have to worry about dynamic augment (from reciprocating machinery traveling at 80 mph), you do have to worry about dead weight. The fact that your main line will be code 100 (132# rail, approximately) has to do with dymanic augment. Your code 83 sidings (110# rail, approximately) represent the requirement to support your heaviest axle loading at reduced speed. So your engine terminal should be laid with code 83 also. Lighter rail (e.g., code 70) could be used where only light locos, e.g., switchers, should go -- places like industrial spurs. Incidentally, axle loadings are not necessarily proportional to locomotive weight. That's because axle loadings decrease as the number of axles increases for a given locomotive weight. This is the reason for EMD's SD series of diesels, as opposed to their GP series. The SDs spread the weight out over more axles, resulting in a one-third reduction in per-axle loading on the rail. This is also the reason that moderate-size articulated locos like 2-6-6-2s are easier on track than equivalently-powered rigid-frame locos like 4-8-4s. You might consider a slight modification to what you propose: Mainline, including passing sidings: code 100 Yards, branch lines, and engine terminal: code 83 Indistrial spurs: code 70 Of course, all of the above is based on prototype considerations, not model requirements, so do what looks best for you. (Yes, this has been an "educated" opinion.) Dick Karnes Change your membership, change your message settings, use our CALENDAR, view shared files or photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ Yahoo! Groups Links Change your membership, change your message settings, use our CALENDAR, view shared files or photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> 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/
