and he notes - Rail design is both form and function as well as economics. Maine's two-footers were an economic adventure and rail and roadbed costs were a factor in selecting gauge, much as the three-foot lines faced back in the 19th century.
The Maine lines found the lightest rail available for their twenty and thirty ton locomotives. They were lucky in that steel rail had been developed for 20 or so years and rail profiles were designed with light components capable of carrying loads that cast iron rails couldn't. So rail weight was a factor of cost but rail height was a factor of design and 2 3/4" rail may weigh 25 lbs per yard but have a smaller bullhead supported by a taller web. It wasn't the best idea as rail failures were common right up to the end of operations in the 30s and the dismal returns on investment made relaying the lines with heavier rail prohibitive. I wasn't serious about painting the rails on ties. Just pointing out a theoretical anomaly. If a real 25 lb length of rail was enlarged to 140 lbs it would probably be 10 or 12" high. The profile changes as rail gets heavier and it doesn't necessarily make it taller. In steam days rail took a pounding from a principal known as 'dynamic augment' where the drivers of a loco running at speed literally lifted off the track during one part of the stroke and then came down like a hammer on the return stroke. This effected the bullhead dramatically and over the years, better steel and better design lessened the problem but not entirely. Since the diesel era, bullhead design has changed and rail height is less a factor in rail weight as lighter components provide better wear characteristics. So a 152 lb per yard length of rail from Pennsy's steam era may be 8" tall where today a 140 lb length may be the same height. Raleigh in Maine where the fog finally lifted... At 01:04 PM 10/6/2005, pieter_roos wrote: >I used the table on a website linked in an earlier mail of this >thread. It listed 25 lb rail as being 2 3/4 inches high, which works >out to .036 inch. Even 1 3/4 inch rail would be "code 25". I know >some small scale modelers have made rail this size by heating and >drawing code 40 rail. You could probably use .025 flat metal strips >on edge as the rail as well, but I don't such small rail was used on >common carrier lines, maybe in mines... > >To see some REALLY tiny work, check out the HOn20 and Nn2 lines on >this page. >http://www.02.246.ne.jp/~hon20/frame.html > >Pieter Roos > >--- In [email protected], Rollain Mercier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and he notes - > > > > If we use the rule of thumb that an inch of rail height equals 18 >lbs per > > yard, then the theoretical rail height would be less than 1 3/4" >tall. A > > second coat of paint would be necessary for the stickler, but you >are right > > - code 40 is about as close as you can get > > > > In actual practice, the lighter rails would have a taller web to >allow for > > tread depth - 'tutherwise a train'd be bouncing over spikes ala >you know > > what... > > > > Raleigh in Maine where it is STILL foggy! > > > > > > At 10:26 AM 10/6/2005, pieter_roos wrote: > > >--- In [email protected], Rollain Mercier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > ><SNIP of interesting stuff> > > > > Incidentally, the other end of the spectrum was the 2 foot >gauge > > >railroads > > > > here in Maine laid with 25 lb rail. That would equate to >painting > > >the rails > > > > on ties in S Gauge!... > > > > > >Unless my math is wrong, 25lb rail at 2 3/4 inches high works out > > >to .036 in S, pretty close to code 40 (which is available in HOn3 > > >gauge, usually used for Sn2 as it scales out to 26 inch gauge in >S). > > > > > >Pieter Roos > > > > > > > > Raleigh in Maine where it's still foggy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To REPLY to the list, use REPLY ALL; to reply to the sender, use > > >REPLY. For those of you on DIGEST mode, all REPLY messages go to >the list > > >(remember to edit the SUBJECT of your message). > > > > > >Change message settings, use our CALENDAR or LINKS, view shared >files or > > >photos, view the list archives, GO TO >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To REPLY to the list, use REPLY ALL; to reply to the sender, use >REPLY. For those of you on DIGEST mode, all REPLY messages go to the list >(remember to edit the SUBJECT of your message). > >Change message settings, use our CALENDAR or LINKS, view shared files or >photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To REPLY to the list, use REPLY ALL; to reply to the sender, use REPLY. For those of you on DIGEST mode, all REPLY messages go to the list (remember to edit the SUBJECT of your message). Change message settings, use our CALENDAR or LINKS, 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/
