# track size



## moon trains (Oct 22, 2014)

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


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

The D&RGW K-36 is a narrow gauge locomotive, so you'd want narrow gauge track.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Side note to help....

Your K-36, being narrow gauge is typically considered.... Fn3. 

Hope this helps...


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

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.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

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.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

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.


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


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

The OP did mention...he wants a "display track"......

;-)


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

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


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The answer to the OP question is "narrow".

The suggestion of code 215 or 250 will make it look a lot more prototypical on display.

Or hand spike a length of track, that will look even better.

Greg


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

Uh oh the rivet counters out in full force..... 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.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

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 .....


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

Yes that would be true, I guess time frame does make difference. I was thinking my little railroad made in the 1880's for light locos Yes hacked ties and no ballast its a no wonder it was broke down all the time.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

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.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

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.....


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks "D". I was just about to go upstairs and look it up. My guess wasn't too far off.

Cheers,

Chuck


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Yea Chuck...ya got the weight correct!!

...." HEAVY " ....


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

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?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

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


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

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.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> my 1:20.3 scale Fn3 45mm gauge prototype 3' narrow gauge (did I miss any)


 A bit redundant. By definition, "Fn3" is defined as 1:20.3 scale with 3' narrow gauge track. ;-)


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

Pete Thornton said:


> A bit redundant. By definition, "Fn3" is defined as 1:20.3 scale with 3' narrow gauge track. ;-)


No its not redundant is it?????

I just like to pick on rivet counters which I more or less am one myself.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Is this you?

All in fun...


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

Totalwrecker said:


> Is this you?
> 
> All in fun...


No but I feel like that. I wish it was though because that is a great view of the underside of a locomotive. I could use that. 

I have zero to maybe less than zero understanding of steam locomotive construction. That's why I have so many stupid questions. I am learning though. Thanks to the great people, including yourself, that have been gracious enough to indulge me. I am beginning to understand what the pieces and parts do and why they should be on my model (or why they purposely shouldn't). 

So yeah when I look at locomotives I kinda have that "what the heck am I looking at" look of wonder on my face. 

Sorry for my poor attempts at humor on here. It, I guess, it isn't be received as I intended. For the record, all the comments on rivet counting and sarcastic comments on gauge and scale etc. were meant in jest. I was meaning to poke fun and have a little light hearted humor. It is all important to those of us, me included, that like the details. I am one of those rivet counters that I was poking fun at.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Devon

As an observer and participant of this site for five plus years, attempts at humor no matter how well intentioned rarely succeed. When we read a post we have no way to interpret what was intended other than reading the words as written. We can't see a smile or twinkle in the eye. 

Keep asking questions and we'll keep supplying conflicting answers. You will get a lot of help, but you will have to decide what works best for you and your project from the various answers.

Chuck


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

Thanks Chuck,


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Use these, even when you think the humor is obvious:   , then if someone does not get the humor, they have been at least "told" it was in fun/jest.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with Greg, use something to suggest humor. Others have used, "ha, ha, ha". 

There is nothing wrong with humor, it just must be understood for what it is. Otherwise, someone might get upset, something none of us want.

Chuck


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> No its not redundant is it?????


 (Good job with the smiley!)



> 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


 If you said "my Fn3 Coeur d'Alene Railway and Navigation Company railroad" then I would have known exactly what you meant. All the rest was superfluous. 
Just as "HOn3" = a 1/87th scale model 3' gauge RR.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

It seems that this thread is about to be quarantined because of the highly infectious virus of RRitus, repetitive-redundantitus.

Chuck


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

OK....warning .....here's a joke guy's!!!!!!

From above.....

....RR ..RR....

....Now add.....LOL....!!!!!! Oh....n turn on yer virus checker two!!!!
He he....

:-D


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Don't go jumping to conclusions, 
"All in fun..." 
was meant to be my smiley..... 

What with rivet counters being mentioned ... and that self explaining picture. 
Let's all share a laff.

Earlier I hacked up a furball over a toy train question, the good part I didn't get any on me!

Happy Rails (or else!)
John


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

Totalwrecker said:


> Don't go jumping to conclusions,
> "All in fun..."
> was meant to be my smiley.....
> 
> ...


 I have to give you credit John, the picture was hilarious. Because I do feel that way. Steam locomotives seem to be giant pieces of iron that people just stuck stuff too. . . I am beginning to understand what the pieces do. And they starting to make sense. But the "dumb wonder" look is applicable and taken in the humorous manor in which you intended.

Devon


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Pete Thornton said:


> (Good job with the smiley!)
> 
> If you said "my Fn3 Coeur d'Alene Railway and Navigation Company railroad" then I would have known exactly what you meant. All the rest was superfluous.
> Just as "HOn3" = a 1/87th scale model 3' gauge RR.


I suppose that to someone that already knows what "Fn3" means, then it has meaning. I have never been able to memorize the various letter equivalencies to scale  , so it has zero meaning to me and adding the various suffixes just cornphounds the cornphuzion. I would have to ask, "What scale is that, what track gauge does the model run on, and what is the prototype gauge?"

Yes, a shortcut is a wonderful thing, BOIYKWIM.  

But then saying the gauge is 45-mm is also somewhat lost to many people if they normally use 'inches' (i.e.: are 'metric deficient'). And, of course, for some people, you have to hold your hand out with your fingers "oh, 'bout that far apart" so they have some idea what 1.75-inches is, or tell them it is slightly bigger than the train that ran around the Christmas tree in the 1950's.





("HOn3" is a typo about putting a sharp edge on your razor.  )


----------



## d_sinsley (Mar 29, 2011)

Semper Vaporo said:


> I suppose that to someone that already knows what "Fn3" means, then it has meaning. I have never been able to memorize the various letter equivalencies to scale  , so it has zero meaning to me and adding the various suffixes just cornphounds the cornphuzion. I would have to ask, "What scale is that, what track gauge does the model run on, and what is the prototype gauge?"


See it wasn't unnecessarily redundant and I knew I left something out and that was the inches conversion. . .

Its all too confusing. 

Am I getting better with the smilies guys. . . now that was a joke and light hearted ribbing so laugh


----------

