# Looking for Opinions/Feedback on Possible New Code 332 Profile



## MGates (Mar 16, 2016)

The owner of Llagas Creek came to me with an idea to possibly get a profile of Code 332 made that has the same foot width as our code 215 and 250 rail (~5mm) so that it could be used in our existing tie strips. Getting new injection molds made for new tie strips can cost around $20k each so that is a bit cost prohibitive at the moment. This profile would also allow the rail to be used in the existing turnout jigs I have.

This test sample I made on my 3D printer so see a mock-up is basically our code 250 profile stretched a bit to 0.332" high. It sure is a bit different than what we are used to seeing in code 332 and has a 'skinny' look, but after seeing the little section of track in person, I have to say it looks better than I thought it might.

I wanted to get some feedback about the profile from folks that use code 332 already. Would you use this profile on your layout if it connected easily enough to the established code 332 profiles currently on the market?

I wanted to hear some opinions before I get around to figuring out how much it would cost to get made in brass, stainless, and nickel silver. I'm hoping that the price would be competitive with other current code 332 options in the market. We keep our production here in the states so it does drive up production costs over what it would be overseas, but if the cost can be close enough, the few extra dollars should be worth a better quality product.

Thanks to all that take the time to comment.

-Mike


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

Unfortunatly I already have all the track I need, but that rail sure looks great.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

I only use Llagas code 250 with the 'original' black tie strips, (best track they ever made) so this may or may not be a concern.
I find it fairly easy to have the spike heads break of if the rail is twisted too much.(So don't twist the rail!!)
With the extra height of the code 332 rail, might there be even more danger, especially for those who use it at ground level and might step on the track?
Mind you, maybe the current strip have stronger spike heads.
Nice bit of 3D printing by the way.
Cheers,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

MGates said:


> an idea to possibly get a profile of Code 332 made that has the same foot width as our code 215 and 250 rail (~5mm) so that it could be used in our existing tie strips


All I can say is - why? Equipment running on code 332 will run quite happily on your code 250 rail, and you have brass rail. Your stretched rail profile won't look like the current track, so the difference will still be obvious. I just don't see any advantage in the concept. (Sorry.)


----------



## MGates (Mar 16, 2016)

Pete Thornton said:


> All I can say is - why? Equipment running on code 332 will run quite happily on your code 250 rail, and you have brass rail. Your stretched rail profile won't look like the current track, so the difference will still be obvious. I just don't see any advantage in the concept. (Sorry.)


I'm posting the inquiry as it was an idea brought up by the company owner so I said I'd post on Facebook and here to get some feedback. I think the idea is that we have had many requests to offer code 332 products recently, so he was thinking up ways to make 332 track a reality without needing to dump a ton of money into new molds for what would essentially be expensive code 332 track compared to brands that use off shore manufacturing with lower prices. This odd thin base profile would eliminate needing new tie strip molds as the narrow gauge or "Black G" strips could be used.

Personally I am in agreement that it wouldn't be very appealing to the market due to it being most likely more expensive and not directly compatible with existing code 332 profiles. I see the need being a complimentary one to existing layouts and an established rail profile rather than the solution of a completely new track system or rail profile. I want to offer our full line of turnouts and custom bespoke point work in code 332 (with the normal profile) to supplement the space with the more unique turnouts that go beyond the basic R5/R7/#6. 

I think with the feedback we have seen today on the Facebook posts and on here are a good clue that making this thin profile is not the way to go and to continue focusing on the turnouts with the normal 332 profile. I'll be excited to be able to offer point work in 332 when the time comes!

-Mike


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think the 332 requests would be mostly to be able to interchange your products with other 332 track. The different profile would require specialized joiners at many points and that would radically increase costs.

I don't really see the advantages, as Pete said, virtually everything will run on code 250, but switches, good switches, are hard to find. If every new switch required 6 custom joiners that's not a good strategy.

But if you are thinking that this is mostly for tangent track, not switches, then I really do not see the point, since track is so much cheaper, and the 332 profile is pretty well established.

I just don't see the "complimentary" offering being viable.

Greg


----------



## FredH (May 18, 2018)

MGates said:


> The owner of Llagas Creek came to me with an idea to possibly get a profile of Code 332 made that has the same foot width as our code 215 and 250 rail (~5mm) so that it could be used in our existing tie strips. Getting new injection molds made for new tie strips can cost around $20k each so that is a bit cost prohibitive at the moment. This profile would also allow the rail to be used in the existing turnout jigs I have.
> 
> This test sample I made on my 3D printer so see a mock-up is basically our code 250 profile stretched a bit to 0.332" high. It sure is a bit different than what we are used to seeing in code 332 and has a 'skinny' look, but after seeing the little section of track in person, I have to say it looks better than I thought it might.
> 
> ...





MGates said:


> The owner of Llagas Creek came to me with an idea to possibly get a profile of Code 332 made that has the same foot width as our code 215 and 250 rail (~5mm) so that it could be used in our existing tie strips. Getting new injection molds made for new tie strips can cost around $20k each so that is a bit cost prohibitive at the moment. This profile would also allow the rail to be used in the existing turnout jigs I have.
> 
> This test sample I made on my 3D printer so see a mock-up is basically our code 250 profile stretched a bit to 0.332" high. It sure is a bit different than what we are used to seeing in code 332 and has a 'skinny' look, but after seeing the little section of track in person, I have to say it looks better than I thought it might.
> 
> ...





MGates said:


> The owner of Llagas Creek came to me with an idea to possibly get a profile of Code 332 made that has the same foot width as our code 215 and 250 rail (~5mm) so that it could be used in our existing tie strips. Getting new injection molds made for new tie strips can cost around $20k each so that is a bit cost prohibitive at the moment. This profile would also allow the rail to be used in the existing turnout jigs I have.
> 
> This test sample I made on my 3D printer so see a mock-up is basically our code 250 profile stretched a bit to 0.332" high. It sure is a bit different than what we are used to seeing in code 332 and has a 'skinny' look, but after seeing the little section of track in person, I have to say it looks better than I thought it might.
> 
> ...


From my perspective they are to use a term "Way Off Track" The best rail ever made for those of us that use large scale to represent narrow gauge railroads in the USA was when we could purchase a code 198 rail. 6 foot lengths. Both weathered and available as un weathered. It was nickel silver rail. All these companies that want to pull rail in big fat codes like 250 and 332 are so far off track that at best they will have minimal sales for the above type of change. Outdoors or indoors modeling. code 332 scales out to a rail that is even larger than the heaviest rail used in modern day main line railroads in the USA. How many folks are modeling modern railroading in large scale and need track for outdoors. I live in a moderately large metropolitan area in the Midwest and have seen exactly one single modeler doing so. I've heard of a possible one other. I've also met and visited outdoor layouts in Florida, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, and a few other places. They all started with LGB 332 brass rail. Then as soon as something better was available all but one made a switch to nickel silver in code 205 or 225. None wanted that big fat rail. I'm not certain that this is an answer you'd like to see; however, it is what my experience shows. I model large scale indoors and most of my rail is the old 'OLD Pullman' code 198. Really like that rail and wish it was still available. Hope you get more than a half dozen or so responses to your question. I can almost imagine the expense of making the dies to pull wire into rail like we use. One point of view. Fred Holzapfel


----------



## FredH (May 18, 2018)

Code 332 is just the incorrect place to spend any money on a new set of dies. Lets go back towards prototypical rail for USA Narrow Gauge. Enough of this huge stuff. Say a nice code 198 or so.


----------



## 1to3 (Mar 15, 2017)

Good luck on your possible venture... I wouldn't do it though. There have been many times LGB has sold track to hobby shops at a loss, in order to sell more or gain back some market share. (If anybody actually can track 'market share' at hobby shops?) In general, track is usually a low-margin product. So if your goal is to produce at a similar price to what is already on the market, you might want to think through the financial part of it.
That is just my $0.02.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree code 200 or 198 looks much more prototypical, but it has nothing to do with the question.

The idea was "can we offer code 332 and not make new tie strip molds". Clearly the idea was that the market is asking for code 332. Therefore I have trouble telling the asker to make code 198 as being a helpful response.

Hopefully the "asker" did consider that specialized joiners would be needed at every transition between the new "skinny" rail and existing 332 profiles. I would think that this fact alone should have deep sixed the idea. Now you have goofy looking rail profile AND extra expense to integrate "normal" 332 profile rail. Really this just does not make sense for the consumer, even though if it sold it would make sense for the manufacturer.

Also, as an aside, the benefits of the oversize 332 outside is strength, and the fact it takes larger rocks to derail the locos! We need all the help we can get outdoors.

I appreciate that some people live in the city, but by far G scale is outdoors, I live in San Diego, it's a big city, and none of our club members have built an indoors layout other than a Christmas-time loop around the tree.

Greg


----------



## MGates (Mar 16, 2016)

Thanks for the additional responses. I talked to the owner some more about it and I think this idea of the skinny 332 is off the table for now. We're still going to move forward with eventually offering 332 turnouts in the standard profile to supplement the market with a more diverse range of sizes beyond the normal R5/R7/#6 realm.

In response to the code 198/205 sizes... I have had a small handful of requests for smaller rail than our code 215 rail, anywhere from code 172 to 205. We have a hard time even selling our code 215 rail anywhere close to the amount of code 250 rail so I don't see us trying to go even smaller. I also do not see 250 as "big," "fat," or out of scale. Llagas Creek was initially born with the intent of offering scale accurate track and code 215 and 250 do match what would be found on US mainlines and narrow gauge lines in the steam era. Code 215 is a great rail profile for Gauge 1 for most roads at a scale 130lb/yd, while the code 250 is excellent to model PRRs 155lb/yd "Pennsy Special" heavy poundage rail in 1:32. 

Re: Prototypical rail for US Narrow gauge... In 1:20.3 the code 215 rail is about a scale 65lb/yd and the code 250 80lb/yd. Using DRG&W as an example, they used a ton of different profiles as the railroad was reworked and expanded. They started off with 30lb/yd rail if I recall correctly. In the 1900s the railroad was using 65lb/yd and a few decades later 85lb/yd or so in areas. So while code 215 or 250 may not model out to the exact poundage of rail used at a very specific date one may wish to model a 3ft narrow gauge line, it still is quite appropriate.

Greg, I did consider the joiner/clamp issue and did bring that up with the owner. I wasn't feeling too strongly about this weird 332 profile to begin with, but I have a 3D printer and an internet of folks that can chime in with their opinions, so why not make a test sample and put the question out there I thought. The responses here and on Facebook ended up making the decision easy to forget about the skinny profile and just work on getting the normal 332 turnouts in the works.

Thanks to all for chiming in.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think that currently no one makes a good #6, and a #8 switch might be good bang for the buck.

Greg


----------



## Techgunner (Jan 13, 2021)

FredH said:


> Code 332 is just the incorrect place to spend any money on a new set of dies.


First. This has nothing to do with this thread and doesn't help the creator of the thread.

Second. Apparently you have never been to California where 98% of G Guage layouts are outside and use Code 332 track.


----------



## ansleyl (Dec 27, 2007)

I see what he's trying to do, and I like Code 332 track, more rugged and available from many manufacturers. However, changing the profile IMHO is a bad idea only because I would another supplier of Code 332, but if it's not swappable or 100% compatible with current code 332 track then this skinny profile won't work for me.

Ted Ansley


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

I second Greg's thoughts on switches. My suggestion would be to concentrate on two major areas. First, HOT FROGS. Insulated frogs are a nightmare for anyone running small short wheelbase steam pattern locomotives. Yes, pickups on the tender help, but hot frogs would be better. In that design, remove the microswitch from below the switch. IF there must be one, make it a separate item thrown by the switch mechanism so the switch can be secured from the weather. 

Second, develop a point/stock rail configuration that is reliable and does not change gauge as the wheelset enters the switch. The throw bar also needs to be reliable and not fall apart over time as some manuifacturers do.

We model in a large enough scale with oversize rail sufficient that these challenges should not be an issue to overcome. There was an article in Garden Railways magazine some time back on building a reliable turnout/switch. might be a good starting point.

As stated by another, I would like to see nickel silver rail (not plated) available for scratch building track components. The obious advantages are that NS rail does not require the cleaning that brass does and can be soldered to unlike aluminum. (Yes there are fluxes that allow soldering aluminum but few modelers attain the skill level to either not make a cold solder joint, or melt the aluminum rail in the process.)


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

One small comment on NS rail, I have seen NS rail outdoors, and a lot of it turned dark gray/black. I have not seen a lot of success with NS outdoors, but I have not seen a lot period. I remember switching to it from brass in my HO days, with the promise it did not need the same cleaning as brass... that was not my experience.

Don't want to derail this thread, but perhaps we could start a thread to hear people's experiences. It's great for track powered locomotive wheels, better than stainless steel.

Greg


----------



## MGates (Mar 16, 2016)

armorsmith said:


> I second Greg's thoughts on switches. My suggestion would be to concentrate on two major areas. First, HOT FROGS. Insulated frogs are a nightmare for anyone running small short wheelbase steam pattern locomotives. Yes, pickups on the tender help, but hot frogs would be better. In that design, remove the microswitch from below the switch. IF there must be one, make it a separate item thrown by the switch mechanism so the switch can be secured from the weather.
> 
> Second, develop a point/stock rail configuration that is reliable and does not change gauge as the wheelset enters the switch. The throw bar also needs to be reliable and not fall apart over time as some manuifacturers do.
> 
> ...


Typically I offer those looking to use turnouts with track power the option to fully insulate the frog on both ends for a dead frog, or when wanting to power the frog to only insulate the frog on the exit side away from the points. This allows the frog to be powered by whatever rail polarity the point is pressed against. This is how USA Trains has their turnouts made I believe. I can look into microswitch solutions if need be. The WA2 machine may be able to provide the frog power/polarity change from one of the pins.

The plan for the stock rail and point rail nesting is to just replicate how it is currently done on the code 215 and 250 turnouts. I keep the gauge within tolerance, a little bit wider than 45mm so that travel through the divergent is smooth.

Offering the rail in Nickel Silver should be possible in addition to stainless and 360 brass. NS is what we sell the most of when it comes to code 215/250, so I don't see much hardship in extending that to 332. It would probably be after the 332 launch and we see how well the stainless and brass stuff does first.



Greg Elmassian said:


> One small comment on NS rail, I have seen NS rail outdoors, and a lot of it turned dark gray/black. I have not seen a lot of success with NS outdoors, but I have not seen a lot period. I remember switching to it from brass in my HO days, with the promise it did not need the same cleaning as brass... that was not my experience.
> 
> Don't want to derail this thread, but perhaps we could start a thread to hear people's experiences. It's great for track powered locomotive wheels, better than stainless steel.
> 
> Greg


Greg,

Yes Nickel Silver does oxidize and forms a dark colored patina over time on the sides. The oxidation layer of nickel silver is a bit conductive and does not stop locos from picking up power when the oxidation film is thin. Over time cleaning is required to get that film off the rail head, but in general requires much less cleaning than brass. The metal make up of 360 Yellow Brass that we have made into code 250 rail is 60% Copper and 40% Zinc, while the Nickel Silver is approx 60% Copper, 20% Zinc, 20% Nickel. The cutting out half of the zinc content found in 360 Brass to replace with nickel does change how it oxidizes quite a bit to allow better running in most environments. 

The feedback I receive from customers about NS is generally positive. I think those that may be less impressed with the conductive nature of NS and their frequency of cleaning tend to be in environments that have many more rainy days or humidity than most others do. This can speed up oxidation and the build up of film. I feel like much discrepancy with folks satisfaction of NS outdoors for track power will depend on some environmental factors, and how often they get out and run trains. I agree it would be nice to see some testimonials about NS if people are willing to give them.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks for the reply, nice to get that feedback, and I agree it seems that the people who have complained to me, have left the track alone for quite extended lengths of time.

Regards, Greg


----------



## DetailsDetails (Jul 28, 2021)

Some folks love the brass .332 rail for their own reasons. 
It is hard to predict if this appeals to some people. Try it. 
I like the idea of your tie system being able to use multiple rails. I have llagas creek rail and LGB and change things a lot over the years.
If nothing else, LGB track is typical European. Bolted, not nailed. So folks running their Uintah or White pass equipment would have the choice to do it on North American prototype track.Offer transition pieces to LGB rail!!!


----------



## MGates (Mar 16, 2016)

DetailsDetails said:


> Some folks love the brass .332 rail for their own reasons.
> It is hard to predict if this appeals to some people. Try it.
> I like the idea of your tie system being able to use multiple rails. I have llagas creek rail and LGB and change things a lot over the years.
> If nothing else, LGB track is typical European. Bolted, not nailed. So folks running their Uintah or White pass equipment would have the choice to do it on North American prototype track.Offer transition pieces to LGB rail!!!


DetailsDetails,

We have received a lot of feedback on the thin/skinny 332 profile presented here both on this forum and on Facebook. I along with the owner of Llagas took all the comments into consideration a few weeks ago and decided to not pursue creating what essentially boils down to a proprietary profile that would require transition pieces to connect to the more widely available profiles used. We are still going to go forward with producing code 332 turnouts in the future once all the molds for casting frogs and points in white bronze are done. In addition to the normal stable of turnouts, just like with our code 215 and 250 rail options, fully bespoke code 332 turnouts and track work will be able to be ordered via email and phone after discussion and blueprint review. 

On the note of transition pieces to LGB rail, I'm not sure if you meant having a transition piece for this hypothetical proposed new 332 profile or for our current code 250 rail. If you meant the latter, we do have a Code 250 to Code 332 "Rail Blender" (called a compromise joint on the prototype) listed on our Accessories page: Rail Blender

Best,
Mike


----------

