Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 2:22:08 GMT -5
Hello again ...
I tested my new BUDD on a slope of 2% (Rokuhan straight line with a 9v block-battery, I think curves of R270mm will not make a big difference), there was no noticeable "slipping", the maximum on my layout would be 1,5%. So I can begin building a "3D"-layout with confidence ...
MOROP/NMRA norms indicate the MINIMUM width for clearance, especially in curves. What total width would YOU use for a REALISTIC single track, especially along hills and with retaining walls ?
Thanks for any answer ...
|
|
|
|
Post by markm on Jun 5, 2017 8:25:40 GMT -5
Alberich,
In this area of discussion I like the MOROP documents better than the NMRA: the descriptions for the track easements are clearer. Unfortunately my railroad German is bad and my railroad French is worst so I apologize in advance if I get it a bit wrong in English. NEM102 gives 20mm as the minimum clear width (B1). From NEM103, I'd consider the car category of the Budd car to be C which gives an easement of 3mm (E) for 270mm curves. This gives a total minimum operational width of 26mm: essentially the same as the "standard" Z sectional track, which I believe all car manufacturers design to. This is also the same for the "Classic" dimensions from the NMRA S-7 document.
From a prototype visual standpoint, it depends where and when you are modeling. U.S. east coast are narrow right-of-ways and I'd stay with the "Classic" dimensions for all modeling except the most modern era, when I'd use 24mm for B1. West Coast are typically wider and I'd start with 24-25mm and ease out from there.
Hope this makes sense,
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by smr on Jun 5, 2017 9:00:04 GMT -5
I fully agree with Mark! A nice prototype example is in my eyes the platform of Santa Barbara. However, on smaller layouts the dominant concrete platforms nearly make any prototypical impression nearly impossible. I recommend to try if not optically less dominant structures can do the job as well.  Here one example from our layout. This kind of platform could be found all over the place in America. Best, Sven |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 9:05:52 GMT -5
Thank You Mark and Sven. I am modelling the late 50's era in Massachusetts. If I can understand, You think that a total width of 26mm, i.e. 13mm on each side from the middle axis of the track, would be adequate according to the norm ? Now the "ultimate" way would be to put the Budd on a section of curved track, and see its behaviour. In a former topic somebody (You ? ) wrote about 12.5 to 13mm on each side (minimum according to the norm), so I think that this dimension is correct. I remember that the standard difference between 2 "successive" radii is 25mm, 2 x 12.5mm, it's about 26mm. I will take this value, on the "internal" side 13mm from middle of the track to the abutments, if present, or the wall itself if not (short or "low" wall) or the beginning of a "natural inclination", and for the "external side" 13mm to the edge of the platform, and I will ballast the whole platfform next to the (Rokuhan) track. I think my few walls won't be very high because my landscape will be rather made of hills (I saw some photos of Massachusetts) than of mountains (I am not modelling the highest Appalachian mountains), the height difference between both stations will be about 10cm. On this plan, arrows indicate "uphill" direction and hatching is for tunnels. It was designed with "raily" and scanned ; some problems with the flex tracks will be corrected on the layout itself, it's easier to align real tracks than "virtual" ones in the software, and some length corrections have to be made, due to the "insulators". I have already the "base structure", now I will ask the carpenter for cutting the "straight" and "curved" strips to support the tracks (4mm plywood linked together with tabs fixed with 2 components glue, "Stabilit Express", and 10mm for the vertical supports). Hills will be made of "Roofmate" on plywood planks over the tunnels, perhaps removable, as I wrote I will test the layout's reliability for several months before modelling the landscape and "closing" the tunnels.  |
|
|
|
Post by markm on Jun 5, 2017 21:19:33 GMT -5
I think 26-28mm for the right-of-way will be appropriate for the era and locale. I recently saw a news story that many east coast right-of-ways are being widened and heightened to accommodate the larger intermodal well cars, so I don't think I'd go much larger than 28mm for the 1950s. Of course the exact width depends on the topography you model. The prototypes would go wider if their was the possibility of wash-out downhill or slides from above.
With your interest in testing the layout, you might want to build a gauge car: a piece of wood or plastic the length of the Budd with trucks, a small level with 1% & 2% markings and an NMRA S-7 shaped piece of cardboard on the front.
The Appalachian mountains are frequently dense deciduous trees. It would be fairly easy to hide the seam of a lift-off piece over the tunnels with lichen balls.
Good luck,
Mark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 2:08:08 GMT -5
Thank You Mark for the idea with the lichen balls ... The long "rear" tunnel will be accessible from the edge, so the problem remains only for the two other tunnels ... if necessary after my tests. Today I made another test, setting my Budd's on curved sections of R = 270mm. The "overhanging" in the innerside of the curve, in the middle of the car, is 2mm from the edge of ballast (Rokuhan). Since the total width of the ballast is 16mm, this means 10mm from the middle of the track. So +/-13 (or better 14mm ? ) width would be enough for them. I will make the test with my GP's, too, but I think they will create less problems (the overall width is about 14,5mm and they are shorter). About the cars : I will run only 40' box cars and cabooses by MTL, and 33' rib-side hoppers by FT. One train with 2 Budd's in MU, one freight train with box cars and another one with hoppers : it's enough for a local, rural layout. And I joined two sections of curved tracks with one 220mm straight, and let my two Budd's coupled together with the original couplers run in both directions over the transition : no problem, but I saw that the couplers didn't stay aligned ; so, no glue with the original couplers ...  . Perhaps I will nevertheless replace the couplers with those by MTL, I will see on my final layout. I didn't test S-curves of R = 490mm (turnouts), because this won't occur : the "passenger" track is the straight one in both stations ! |
|
|
|
Post by domi on Jun 6, 2017 2:58:14 GMT -5
I didn't test S-curves of R = 490mm (turnouts), because this won't occur : the "passenger" track is the straight one in both stations ! I don't run any passenger equipment but I've 8 autoracks, that are roughly the same length as passenger cars, with trucks located the same way inwards.. They are fit with truck mounted couplers, AZL style of course. I've not the least probem running them on my R490 turnout S-curves. And I plan to swap their AZL couplers with MTL #905 as well...  Dom |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 13:00:45 GMT -5
On Budd's, the couplers are body-mounted ...
|
|
|
|
Post by markm on Jun 6, 2017 14:22:34 GMT -5
On the Budd units, I don't think there is much value in swapping out the couplers for MTL unless you plan on doing hands-off uncoupling of the units. The air hose extension looks a bit out of place on the open coupler and if you check prototype images, that hose can be hard to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 15:16:29 GMT -5
The Budd's will always run coupled together, pairwise, "symmetrically" , in both directions (that's their advantage). I think that's correct ? Or should they be coupled in the "same direction" ? Or perhaps it isn't important ? No "hands off" uncoupling wanted ... I hope only that there won't be sometimes inopportune, unwanted uncoupling !  PS : Sorry, the subject is derailing again to "Budd's" ... |
|
. Perhaps I will nevertheless replace the couplers with those by MTL, I will see on my final layout. I didn't test S-curves of R = 490mm (turnouts), because this won't occur : the "passenger" track is the straight one in both stations !
