# 1/32 scale 130lb rail



## gaugeonebloke (Aug 18, 2008)

Hi all
Looking to build a track this summer in the garden. Llargas Creek advertise code 215 rail. Does anyone know if its track section is to scale ? For a full size drawing see
e.g http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=100975

I tried filling out the form but had no answer. Maybe they are not in business now?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I have Llagas Creek code 215 Nickel Silver rail. Attached is a photo of a 1/2 inch long piece of it.

Using my rusty, err, I mean, trusty, Starrett digital micrometer I get the following measurements:


The rail head width is: -- 0.097"
The rail head height is: - 0.066"
The web height is: ------- 0.120"
The web thickness is: ---- 0.041"
The foot width is: ------- 0.194"
The foot thickness is: --- 0.039"



Just comparing the drawing you supplied to the piece of rail it looks like the web is a bit thicker. The foot is not as tapered from the web to the edge and the fillet from the foot to the web is much smaller. The head is also maybe a bit more "squat" than in the drawing.

I have always considered it 1:32 scale 130lbs rail.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Each foundry drew up their own plans..
Time of century and use also were factors... see attachment.
John


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

You might want to give some thought about what equipment you'll be running. I asked about rail some time ago, and some people advised me that some of the more "toylike" models with oversized flanges can bump on the tie plates. True 1:32 models should be fine.

I'm going with code 250, for increased mechanical strength, for visitors, and to run LGB wagons.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

gaugeonebloke said:


> Hi all
> 
> I tried filling out the form but had no answer. Maybe they are not in business now?


A dealer advised me that he thought that Llagas is probably finished.
Let's hope not as it is excellent track.
Cheers,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

John, interesting chart. I see there is even a prototype for that cheap Bachmann track. You know, the hollow stuff that rusts outside!
I know that Peco make nickle silver code 200 because I bought a box by mistake. 

Andrew


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

IMO, no one should use code 215, its just too small.
you will have an increased risk of wheel, flange, and derailment problems..
the rail is so short, that many flanges will hit the ties! 

Code 250 looks totally great for 1/29 and 1/32 scale, much better than code 332,
and it doesn't have any major operational issues..

The generally accepted average rail size for US mainline track today is 132 pounds per yard:

http://www.brunelhobbies.com.au/ME/railFacts.htm

HO scale modelers have adopted code 83 as the "best" track size for HO scale,
which works out to that 132 pound prototype track.

PRR had some very heavy 155 lb/yd track, but that was an exception, not the rule.

So if we use that 132 pound prototype track as a guide, that track is 7.125" tall:

http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRrailsizes.html

Which works out to code 222 for 1/32 scale.
and code 245 for 1/29 scale.

yep, code 250 is just about perfect..
there is no need to go with anything smaller..

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

...


----------



## gaugeonebloke (Aug 18, 2008)

Scott. Do you run narrow gauge and standard gauge prototypes on your code 250 rail ?

Seems unlikely to me that 1/32 scale Standard Gauge models to G1MRA standards (2mm max flange depth) would hit the code 215 rail as specified by Semper Vaporo.

http://www.g1mra.com/pdf/standard-dimensions-for-gauge1.pdf

Indeed Cliff Barker over here in the UK sells Code 180 rail for Gauge 1!

I wonder what section of nickel-silver the Llargas Creek rail is milled from ? Triangular section, if available might work. I called the numbers on the Llargas Creek website. The cellphone was no longer listed*, I left messages on the others. 

Simon 
* Assuming I did not make a mistake when calling


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

gaugeonebloke said:


> Scott. Do you run narrow gauge and standard gauge prototypes on your code 250 rail ?


No, but only because my garden railroad isnt running yet! 
but I intend to run both on code 250.
I have some sunset valley code 250 I have been playing with.
Im planning to build my garden railroad to 1/29 scale..code 250 will be perfect.



> Seems unlikely to me that 1/32 scale Standard Gauge models to G1MRA standards (2mm max flange depth) would hit the code 215 rail as specified by Semper Vaporo.


yes..but..not everything follows that standard!  that standard is a suggestion, not a rule..there are some existing wheelsets that dont follow that standard, and have larger flanges.

If you really wanted to use Code 215, you could make your models work on it..but it might potentially take more work modifying and buying of wheels..but if you use code 250, virtually everything will run fine as-is...I see no reason to use code 215 when code 250 is already "small enough" as it is, and will most liekly work better with less operational issues than code 215.
No one can really argue that code 250 is "too big" for 1/32 or 1/29 scale..it simply isnt.

below are some other older threads on the topic, perhaps the flange issue isnt as a big a deal as I thought, but there are still some other drawbacks to code 215, fragility, etc..
code 215 will probably be fine if you want to use it..IMO code 250 is "more fine" 

http://forums.mylargescale.com/16-t...oadbed/5325-code-215-225-rail-what-works.html

http://forums.mylargescale.com/16-t.../27654-rail-size-thoughts-code-215-250-a.html

http://forums.mylargescale.com/16-t.../25441-code-215-what-wheelsets-won-t-run.html

http://forums.mylargescale.com/16-track-trestles-bridges-roadbed/16239-code-215-250-rail-users.html

Scot


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> IMO, no one should use code 215, its just too small.
> you will have an increased risk of wheel, flange, and derailment problems..
> the rail is so short, that many flanges will hit the ties!


Scott,
I believe Clem's portable (indoor) track is entirely Llagas code 215 rail. It doesn't seem to mind what we run on it.


----------



## Dan Pantages (Jan 2, 2008)

Llagas Creek is not finished. Yes there has be a hick-up but all is well now. Jerry Hyde has taken it over. Product is being shipped as we speak.


----------



## JerryB (Jan 2, 2008)

gaugeonebloke said:


> <snip> I called the numbers on the *Llargas* Creek website. The cellphone was no longer listed*, I left messages on the others.
> 
> Simon
> * Assuming I did not make a mistake when calling


Possible you made a mistake, as you have consistently misspelled the company's name. 

It is *Llagas Creek Railways*. Note that there is no "r" in Llagas.

I am on the road, and do not have their current contact information, but Jerry Hyde is the principal at Hyde-Out Mountain Live Steam. Try him.

Happy RRing,

Jerry


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I run strictly 1:32 scale (EXCEPT for an LGB "Peanuts" novelty toy) and have no problem with my cars on code 215 track (even the "Peanuts" motorcycle runs without problem). However...

I do have friends that come over to run things and there are a few cars and engines that have tended to "bounce on the spikes" due to the excessive flange depth of their wheels. But it has never caused a problem, except for the annoying "clicky" sound and the funny bouncing of the cars. (The bouncing might be an enhancement for some novelty trains/cars.)

As for strength... my track was all elevated so there was no chance of someone walking on it. If my track were to be on the ground, I'd go with code 250 for the added strength.


----------



## gaugeonebloke (Aug 18, 2008)

Many thanks for your feedback. Llagas Creek normally is used with plastic ties. Wondering about using western red cedar ties instead. Full size rail uses tieplates to join track to tie. How would you do it ?


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I believe the whole of Roger's RGSEast layout was Llagas code 215 rail in their plastic 1:20.3 tie strips. (The code 215 rail was widened at the base to match the code 250 so they both work in the tie strips.) 









I don't recall any visiting loco or train bumping on the ties or spike heads.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> Full size rail uses tieplates to join track to tie. How would you do it ?


We do it with spikes. Spiking plain track is very tedious, so I gave up and bought the tie strips. My switches were all hand spiked with Micro-Engineering or similar tie plates.










There were some "plugs" made by Llagas - I don't know if they are still available. 









A year or two ago there was a gent wanting to get 10,000 of them. I don't recall if he ever reported back!

Here's what they look like in plain track - the wooden (redwood) ties were drilled in a jig.


----------



## du-bousquetaire (Feb 14, 2011)

My track is code 200 on the inner and code 215 on the outer main and only out of scale flanges hit the spike heads. When that happens to any of my own stock i turn the flanges down, problem solved. The appearance is much enhanced by scale rail sizes. For years this was a major issue in model railroading in the smaller scales, giving up on that heritage today is a crime. The secret is to have a solid and accurate foundation.
Simon


----------

