G Scale Model Train Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

track size

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
M

moon trains

· Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Hi All, I am a newly here, but have just recently acquired an Accucraft K-36 D&RGW #480 Live Steam Flying Rio Grande loco 1:20.3 and was going to put it on display.

I know it runs on 45mm track or G Scale??, but I can't figure out if this is the narrow or the standard Accucraft track?

Cheers
 
#4 · (Edited)
Lucky you!

Your engine is a narrow gauge locomotive. There are many different prototype gauges that run on our 45mm gauge track.

The scale is the difference.

1:20.3 is 3' narrow gauge.

1:22.5 is European meter gauge.

1:24 is cape gauge, 42"

1:29 standard gauge not quite correct, but a lot of us run trains in that scale.

1:32 standard gauge, correct for our track.

There are other scales also for this track.

Chuck

The only difference in the track would be the spacing of the ties.
 
#5 ·
Hi M.T.

.....Welcome to our train heaven..here on MLS

Say..let us know your name please!! We're personal around here...otherwise someone may give you a nickname!!

....so..if I had such a beautiful LARGE loco...and desired to put it on display...I'd look for a nice clear piece of Oak shelfing...hand lay wood ties the correct size on a thin sub-base .. raising the ties off the oak...add cool ballast and code 215 or 250 weathered rail....spike the whole works!!

Maybe a brass plaque on the front....

...and I have a friend I have helped move and run a similar K-36...
...I know how large they can be...!!

Get us some pix...hang in here...drop on in again....

Thanks fer com'n over btw!!

.. Dirk - DMS Ry.
 
#6 ·
The gauge is 45mm. In the 1:20.3 scale your engine is, this represents 3 foot gauge track in the real world.

Since your engine is narrow gauge you would probably want the narrow gauge tie strips that some manufacturers offer. Otherwise any 45 mm track will allow your engine to run fine. The tie spacing is just a matter of taste (yours, not anybody else's).

Hope this helps.
 
#7 ·
Ironton said:
The gauge is 45mm. In the 1:20.3 scale your engine is, this represents 3 foot gauge track in the real world.

Since your engine is narrow gauge you would probably want the narrow gauge tie strips that some manufacturers offer. Otherwise any 45 mm track will allow your engine to run fine. The tie spacing is just a matter of taste (yours, not anybody else's).

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Well, its more than a matter of taste..it is also a matter of accuracy! ;)
Yes, anyone can use any track they like..but if you have all 1/20.3 scale equipment, you would definitely want the "narrow gauge profile" ties..and if you have all 1/29 or 1/32 scale equipment, it would be a better visual match to use the "standard gauge profile" ties..

yes, for operation, it makes no difference at all..but if you model primarily narrow gauge or primarily standard gauge, IMO it would be a good idea to pay attention to the ties..
not a requirement! ;) just a good idea..

Scot
 
#9 · (Edited)
FYI
Narrow Ga. track has wider spacing between the ties and there is more tie on the out sides of the rails. The ties tend to look a tad more random while mainline track has uniform ties. The rails size should be smaller than mainline rails, so a code 215 or 250 will be more realistic than the code 332.
Code 215 means .0215" tall, 332 is a third of an inch, 250 a quarter and 215 a tad over a fifth of an inch tall.
Enjoy your loco, there will be many things to catch your eye.
John
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#11 ·
Uh oh the rivet counters out in full force....:p. When I lay my track for my 1:20.3 scale Fn3 45mm gauge prototype 3' narrow gauge (did I miss any) Coeur d'Alene Railway and Navigation Company railroad I had better lay a portion on standard gauge ties with the rails hand spiked to 3' but off center. A portion of their track was laid with the specific intent to of standardizing it by only moving one rail which they did two years later.

I am picking on you guys. I do agree especially if it will be a short section of track for display only. I didn't think much of this until I saw the difference and it does visually make a difference.

I intend to do a static display and like the first response I will pay much attention to detail on the shelf and the track as much as the model. But shouldn't a old west narrow gauge be made on a piece of rustic hickory or knotty pine. give it that old time weathered look.

Oh and most western old ties I have seen are more or less logs with a flat edge not the pretty rectangular jobs we see today. something to consider.
 
#12 ·
By the time K-36's belched smoke n cinders....hacked out round ties were left to out of the way logging lines...

Yes they may have layed in the 1870 - 1880 time period...

Not so K-36 me thinks...

Place a light Shay on them hacked ties...

No ballast .....
 
#14 ·
The K-36 as far as narrow gauge steam engines goes is modern. They are still running on tourist railroads in Colorado. Square ties are appropriate. They are big heavy engines, untreated primitive ties wouldn't last long under the weight.

Chuck

When I get a chance, I'll check my books. My guess is that they were first built in the 1920s or early 1930s.
 
#15 ·
Quick searches help....

K-36 first delivered in 1925 to DRG&W....
10 built ...9 with two historic roads in CO. currently...!!
1 lost in 1955
Nearly 190,000 pounds....far greater than a K-28 @ about 113,000 or so.....
 
#18 ·
I can see your point on the tie issue with these locos. My prototype railroad had four locomotives and the #4 which was a beast compared to it predecessors weighed 74,000 lbs total weight per the Baldwin build sheet. These locomotives were twice the weight of my railroads biggest locomotive. I guess rough cut ties and 40# rail wouldn't cut it would it?
 
#19 ·
Rough cut ties wouldn't so much be a problem, but the 40# rail most certainly would have been. By the time the Ks and similar sized locos such as the EBT's mikados, etc., were being built, narrow gauge lines looking to run locos that large had upgraded their rail to 60# or better.

When the EBT ordered their mid-sized mikados (nos 14 and 15--comparable to the K-27), they were designed to be as large as possible to still safely run on 60-pound rail. Later, when the large mikes arrived, the railroad upgraded much of the railroad to 70- and 80-pound rail.

The EBT got most of their ties from local lumber operations. They never used treated ties, despite the Pennsy RR having a tie-treating plant right there in Mt. Union!

Later,

K
 
#20 ·
The guy who built the CR&N was cheap and in a hurry to say the least. They laid light rail, on rough cut ties and did not ballast the track. The first year of operation they ran one month before winter set in the tracks heaved and the locomotive was stranded and left for spring. In the spring they had to repair almost every inch of track they laid the previous year. They got smart and finally ballasted it all but still used the #40 rail. When NP took over they upgraded the ties and rails on everything they put in new. They had plans to turn it all into standard which they did.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
About this Discussion
34 Replies
12 Participants
Last post:
d_sinsley
G Scale Model Train Forum
posts
460K
members
32K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to G scale model train owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Live Steam General G Scale Discussions Beginner's Forum Model Making Track, Trestles, Bridges and Roadbed