# Mild Steel (Bar-stock) Track for Large Scale



## Craig C (Mar 21, 2018)

Anyone making their own track out of steel bar stock or angle? I sold off all my track years ago, but kept my trains. I'm now building 45mm track out of steel bar stock.

I've welded up my first switch & it works great. I've also made up some straight track. I decided to forego the wood-ties a-la "groovy track" as they are a lot of trouble to make & since I was welding up the switches, I just put a steel tie/sleeper every foot on the straight track. My plan is to have some "photo-ready" sections of track that have ties every 2 inches (looks close to "Euro" style ties when painted black)... just for, well, photos. Once the track is ballasted, I don't think the ties will be an issue though, & it certainly won't float up out of the ballast like the plastic ties.

This is my first time welding, so my welds are shite & look like it. My next switch will be much more photo-worthy. Will post a photo of that one after I build it.

I can get the steel in 20' lengths, which is really, really nice (fewer joints) & the trains run very smooth. Forgot to add... the cost is great too... get a 20' piece of bar stock for less than $4. 

Needless to say, the track (& switches) are ROBUST. Will be nice to have track that can really stand up to the outdoor environment.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

One must assume you are not running track power! 

But I think you will find that the track will still "float" up out of the ballast. Anything that causes a tie to rise any little bit (such as thermal expansion or a heavy train running over track ahead/behind a tie) will allow ballast to creep under the tie and slowly, as more rocks get under it, the track will rise to the top. "You just can't keep a good track down!"


----------



## Craig C (Mar 21, 2018)

Semper Vaporo said:


> One must assume you are not running track power!
> 
> But I think you will find that the track will still "float" up out of the ballast. Anything that causes a tie to rise any little bit (such as thermal expansion or a heavy train running over track ahead/behind a tie) will allow ballast to creep under the tie and slowly, as more rocks get under it, the track will rise to the top. "You just can't keep a good track down!"



Correct, battery power. I fought the good fight in that "holy war" for years, (on the track-power side) but finally went over. Just TOO MANY large & small variables conspire against track power outside in the long run.

Anyway, will fix down turnouts, mostly still have the concrete road-bed from the last incarnation. will also fix down other track as expansion considerations allow. I like it stay put as much as possible. I found in my old setup that the tendency for the plastic ties to float up was high, & sometimes could things out of wack requiring pulling up track in each direction to sweep the roadbed, relay track & re-ballast. exhausting.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Stavers huge live steam track is all stainless steel bar stock. There's a complete thread (with photos) over on LSC.
http://www.largescalecentral.com/fo...t-staver-locomotive-for-spring-steamup?page=1


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It is stainless? I read the article and did not see him say "stainless", but that sure would make sense.

Greg


----------



## Craig C (Mar 21, 2018)

Greg Elmassian said:


> It is stainless? I read the article and did not see him say "stainless", but that sure would make sense.
> 
> Greg



I don't think it is because in one post he talks about rust & how that they had looked at other material options, like stainless, but that in the end, the owner liked the look of rusty rails.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, that is what I remembered, also I saw pictures of before and after changes and the shinyness of the rails varied. Stainless would always be shiny.

I understand about the realistic look of rust on rails, but to me, the bar stock does not look realistic since it has no head and foot.

Most things that run there are live steam, with some battery, so stainless would probably be overkill, and harder to fabricate.

Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Greg Elmassian said:


> Yes, that is what I remembered, also I saw pictures of before and after changes and the shinyness of the rails varied. Stainless would always be shiny.
> 
> I understand about the realistic look of rust on rails, but to me, the bar stock does not look realistic since it has no head and foot.
> 
> ...



I've seen some (of) your layout Greg and like the live steamers, it's about the trains, not the scenery. Kinda funny to be picky about rail profile when you run on a 'roller coaster' track profile. I've not seen 'realistic' on your pike.
We all make sacrifices as needed. Cheap rail included.

An observation, not a challenge.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Being a Live Steamer, I agree that it is all about the trains... or rather, about the "Steam Locomotive". 

But I ran my Mike on a treadmill for only a short time before I decided it had to actually pull a rake of random freight cars and it had to do so on correct scale realistic track. And then it wasn't long and I had to get a 2nd Mike so I could double-head them! 

Scenery was only an adjunct to make running the steamer easier... I had a wind-block next to my steam-up bay, so a breeze would not suck the fire out the bottom of the firebox! Making that wind-block look like store fronts was not necessary for function, but it made the steamer look better when sitting still with that ugly fan stuck in the chimney! 

I am sure that from 10-ft. the bar stock will not be noticeable as not "real" rail... so as long as the trains get to move, who cares!?


----------



## Craig C (Mar 21, 2018)

I plan to have a couple of photo-worth spots (at my two "stations") where the track will be "dressed" up with a building & some scenery stuff. BUT, for me THE most important thing with the track is reliability & resistance to everything the real (outside) world throws at it.

I got into largescale because I have a small house (& therefore no room inside for any sort of HO layout) but I have a large backyard. Before I pulled up my brass track & sold it off, I had about 500 feet of track total, with about 300 feet or so being the main layout, which ran the perimeter of my back yard, with the rest being sidings & storage tracks, etc. The track was subject to all sort of "extra" abuse as result: dogs, crossing of the tracks by yard equipment, etc.

Anyway to cut it short, the steel track is worth the trade off to me (trading looks for strength). The cost savings is wonderful too.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

John, I never said my layout grades were realistic, but my rail looks like rail, my ties look like ties with simulated spikes and tie plates.

My comment was about the Stavers installation. I get that real steel looks realistic in that it can rust, but since it does not look like rail, I thought it was funny to want "realism" in one area of the track, but not realistic at all in the "rail" cross section.

I make no claims about my layout anywhere I know of, certainly not in this thread, and if you want to call my layout like a roller coaster (which is really a poor analogy since it goes up once and then it comes down) tha's fine if it makes you feel better.

Getting back to the subject, square bar stock certainly simplifies fabrication of switches at the points and frogs etc. It also clearly simplifies the attaching of the rail to the ties, which seems to be only forced into a slot in the ties, so with their jig to notch the ties, they are really set up to proceed quickly, although again no tie plates no spikes.

Greg - 57


----------



## placitassteam (Jan 2, 2008)

I like to run steamers but I also like to see them do something other than go round and round in a circle (oval?). My railroad has ups and downs, partly because it is built on a hill and partly because I like the challenge of driving a locomotive on varying terrain. I did, with considerable effort, make a 217 foot flat loop for steamers running manual control. I also like my models of historic buildings. This is not to diminish anyone else's layout, just my own preference. I see no reason not to use flat stock for rails if that satisfies your needs. It certainly is cheaper!


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Sorry Greg, thought you'd understand my comment about your over all presentation, from a recent video you posted showing your steep grade ... toy train track and trains. Sectional track (which I also have) is toy like (to me) with curved switches and no spiral transitions. That's all I meant by that, carry on big man.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, I'll agree sectional track is toy like, but good ballasting hides many sins!

That does make me remember the fantastic weathering you have done on your stainless, which I might need to do, that would help a lot. I better bookmark your posts before they slip into oblivion.

Greg


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg Elmassian said:


> It is stainless? I read the article and did not see him say "stainless", but that sure would make sense.
> 
> Greg


I thought Glenn said stainless - but mild steel would make sense. It is certainly bar stock - you can see the 'rail' ends where he tested the crossover.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Pete, from the link you posted, a post from 26 February:

Hi Greg:

As Dan wrote, you are mostly correct.

The rails do rust,and there is some added friction for long trains. As of now we usually do a light sanding of the rails before each event and the friction is decreased significantly.

When we build the extended outdoor division, it will be impractical to sand the entire track footage, and of course turnouts could be a problem with corrosion. We are experimenting 
with a biodegradable product called "Fluid Film", this product is used extensively in the marine industry to protect chains, cables, and hardware. So far I have sprayed some on a 
turnout located on a short run we built outdoors and the results have been excellent. One treatment 2 months ago and the weather has only created a little surface rust. So our thought
would be to run a sprayer equipped train once a month or so outdoors.

We thought about using stainless, or a different alloy of steel more resistant to rusting. But we can't over do it because Larry likes the rusty track look...so far the Fluid Film is working
and we will continue our experiments.


So, stainless was _indeed _mentioned, but the idea discarded, in favor of "prototype rust" on mild steel bar stock. Maybe that mention is what stuck in your memory.


With the live steamers ability oil the rails, and a coating of "Fluid Film", seems the railtops will stay ok:










Interesting about added friction from the rust. Seems to confirm that with our model curves, we still do not enjoy the "differential action" on our wheelsets as compared to the prototype wheel contours on prototype curves.

Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

2 reasons; weight and curvature. 
We'd need steep tapers on our wheels to compensate for running on minimum radii. 
We don't have the weight to keep our wheels away from the flanges either.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree, weight is a huge issue often overlooked. Most people are likewise loathe to add weight to bring to the prototype range since it then affects how many cars they can pull with a loco.

Also, our wheel contours are almost always wrong, G scale is still in the toy train flange era that HO got out of with the RP25 contour.

Greg


----------

