 |
| Posted: Sun May 6th, 2012 05:59 am |
|
1st Post |
clark33
|
I’d like your advice.
I’m putting together a series of modules to represent locations in the US south east.
Starting with a staging yard representing Key West, FL
Next up line are two modules showing a bleak windswept flag-stop I’m calling Summit Key. I’ll use the AMB kit ‘Cullen’. I’m installing a passing loop to hold a Pullman sleeping car.
Next up line, the modules represent a 1930s streamline modern depot kit-bashed from a Bachmann art deco bus station. This is Froilan Key.
Now, the what-ifs kick in. The line’s passenger and freight service is operated by Seaboard (SAL) equipment. SAL has running rights on the Florida East Coast (FEC) Overseas Extension. My twists on history are: the 1935 hurricane did not close the line; the early 1960s trade embargo with Cuba is in the near future; Amtrak and the FEC strike are in the next decade; Key West has become a deep water port with a rail car ferry to Havana; SAL’s streamliner The Silver Keys has replaced FEC’s Havana Special; SAL has developed several resort hotels midway on the keys in 1930s art deco style. I call the scenario Seaboard 1969 as the ACL/SAL merger is in the near future.
I want to understand the constraints of hurricane weakened bridges and poor track due to an impoverished FEC. I’m supposing the rail on the overseas extension was light-ish, but typically what factors cause the rail to be upgraded. I begin to think I should be aware of locomotive weights and track loading Is there a rule of thumb? I’d think the weakened bridges would be more of a problem than poor track, (problem of big money requirement).
Phil
____________________
Phil 'limey expat' Clark, Catarman, Philippines.
cell: +63(0)-92-7553-4576
http://www.clark33.com
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun May 6th, 2012 02:10 pm |
|
2nd Post |
Herb Kephart
Administrator
|
Under the "conditions" that you describe, rail torn up from some abandoned mainline trackage might have been bought at scrap price (this happened often) and thus heavier rail than expected would be used.
You are right about the bridges. Lot easier to rerail something than fish it out of a creekbed.
Herb 
____________________
I get along very well with other people, as long as they leave me the @#*& alone!
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun May 6th, 2012 11:34 pm |
|
3rd Post |
clark33
|
Cheers Herb, heavier rail at auction would be a possibility.
____________________
Phil 'limey expat' Clark, Catarman, Philippines.
cell: +63(0)-92-7553-4576
http://www.clark33.com
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon May 28th, 2012 02:56 pm |
|
4th Post |
jtrain
| Joined: | Sun May 27th, 2012 |
| Location: | South Dakota USA |
| Posts: | 112 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
javascript:emoticon(' ', 'images/emoticons/thinking.gif')Just off the top of my head, here are several reasons why a railroad would use either different track in different places, or upgrade to a new size of rail:
1. In the transition period, many lines were torn up, then upgraded to heavier rail as the large diesel locomotives took over from steam. This didn't happen all at once, and often different sections of the line would be replaced at different times.
2. As cars and planes took money away from the railroads, rail lines that were not used often would be torn up.
3. Heavier traffic would cause higher iron to be used
4. Northern climates like MN in some areas might use heavier rail so the track does not; come out of gauge by snow, expansion and contraction issues, and would help somewhat with snow removal, allowing more space for the flanges to pass freely.
As far as I know of, there is no rule of thumb. However, I'd say that if the FEC had four axle diesel locomotives, High iron isn't needed. But If you had six axle locomotives, and large-articulated steam engines, then high iron is needed.
However, I caution going too far into this as it will not only give you a headache, but you might not be able to run your engines where you want to.
Different brands will have different flange depths, and different dimensions. So you might ground out your locomotive if you use rail that is too light.
If you want to limit what locomotive goes where on your layout, that's your decision, but I personally like to run my locomotives on most places of my layout, so I don't worry about track too much.
So If I were in your position, I would make sure that my heaviest locomotive with the largest flanges can navigate most track on your railroad. That sets a minimum height for your rail.
But like I said, its your railroad, you can have as shallow of rail as you want, I just caution against going too low.
Hope this helps
 Last edited on Mon May 28th, 2012 03:10 pm by jtrain
____________________
James W.
Choosing a scale is hard, the coin landed on edge...
guess I'll do them all!!!!
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon May 28th, 2012 10:28 pm |
|
5th Post |
| Posted: Wed Dec 5th, 2012 12:45 pm |
|
6th Post |
Dasni111
| Joined: | Wed Dec 5th, 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Dude i totally agree with you..in my point of view track history is too long and i thought before the post that track is on those place where water is around on these tracks and train run between...i like these types of tracks where passenger of the train also take fun
____________________
Floor Scale
|
|
|
Current time is 02:28 am | |
|
|
|
