# Code 250 size compared to code 332



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Despite several searches in this forum I could not find where anyone put a piece of each size track next to each other to compare them. I was looking at some
code 250 a guy has for sale, he also had a box of new LGB brass rail. I was blown away at the difference in size! IF it was full size track the rail would be a foot tall or more! I had not seen them side by side for quite awhile. IF someone has a piece of both codes, cut off a slice and lay the ends side by side and put a pix of them on the forum. All I have is code 250 and have no one around with larger codes. Could be interesting for folk to see.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

332 is 9.6" in 1:29, and 6.7" in 1:20.... 

Nowhere near 12" by my calcs... 

so code 332 is 130 pound rail in 1:20 

in 1:29 is is really heavy, over 155 pound. 

250 is 7.25" in 1:29 and 5" in 1:20.3 

so 250 is about 145 pound in 1:29, and under 90 pound rail in 1:20.3 

check my math, but 332 is not as huge as I thought. 

look at this table of prototype rail height, the top of this page: http://urbaneagle.com/data/RRrailsizes.html 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry, 
I googled 'railblender' and got a couple of hits, including an MLS thread with this pic: 










http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...fault.aspx


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

.332 inches = 9.6" in 1/29 scale. 
.250 inches = 7.25" in 1/29 scale. 

Making code 332 about 2 inches taller if they were "real" rail.. 
you can do the math for other scales, but the differences are not dramatically different.. 

Scot


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

The Pensy RR way back when use 155# rail. Neat stuff. And now days Most RR going to 141# and bigger. Later RJD


----------



## Manco (Jan 5, 2009)

I'm your huckleberry. Aluminum is code 250 SVRR. Brown is the new Train-Li code 332 plastic rail. In the three rail comparison, the brass is code 332 LGB.


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

HUGE difference when you see it end on. Your trains look SOOOOO much better on code 250. Thanks for the good pix. What do you think of the plastic rail?


----------



## Manco (Jan 5, 2009)

Yes! 332 looks like a toy when you see it next to the code 250; but don't get me started, I already ranted about that subject in another thread . I'm not sure what to think of the plastic rail since I don't have any ties to fit it yet. I'm waiting to see other's experiences with various tie strips before I buy the expensive Train-Li ones. Otherwise, it is VERY flexible which means very little tension in curves so securing ties to subroadbed shouldn't be a problem. As I type this I'm sitting here bending a 5' section in a complete circle, touching end to end, and it springs right back to straight. Try that with your metal rail . At any rate, the jury's out until I can string this through some ties and pound some freight trains over it.


----------



## GaryY (Jan 2, 2008)

The code 250 looks great and the size seems more realistic and may be worth trying. I was wondering tho, does it present any flange problems with say USA or Aristo loco/rolling stock wheelsets? 
Gary


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Everyone says that 250 has no problems with them, but I have not measured the "spike height" on the plastic rail. 

Llagas and SVRR seem to be fine, you only get "touchy" at code 215. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## GaryY (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the reply Greg....
I am a 332 user as I guess most are but I always like to look at new alternatives and maybe use the 250 on a spur or siding I am thinking of adding this year...

Gary


----------



## Manco (Jan 5, 2009)

Gary 

I have run Aristo, Bachmann, LGB, and USA trains on code 250 Sunset valley rail flextrack. Have had 0 flange clearance issues. I have not even heard of someone having clearance issues. I researched that very issue before purchasing and found people claiming, just like myself, to have run various brands of equipment without issues.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

If I was starting now, I would definitely go all code 250... it DOES look better in 1:29.. 

And now there are SS switches in code 250... 

As my Aristo switches crap out, I may just replace them with code 250 ones... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## GaryY (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Manco, good info to know. 
I agree it does look more to scale than the 332 and I am definitely going to have a look into it, especially now my interest is stirred up... 
My only consideration would be if it is a bit more fragile for someone (ie: myself) stepping/tripping on it but in reality this is a rarity so that part doesn't worry me enough not to try it thats for sure. 


Gary


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

I run all sorts of wheels, Aristo, Bachman, USA, Sierra Valley and Gary Raymond, have never had any issues with the size of code 250 with flanges or any problems. So that rumor is false.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

So how does it hold up to stepping on? i have an area that I can not avoid stepping on the track and the 332 SS I have laid there holds up guite well to the stepping on. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Jerry, you are referring to clearance problems with flanges, right? Not whether it bends more easily when stepped on (which is true)? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## ConrailRay (Jan 2, 2008)

Don't forget the size of the ties will also dramatically change the appearence.
Here's a pic of some track I took a few years ago, trying to find the most detailed and accurate US track/ties/tie plates.

http://conrailray.com/gscale/track/track_top.jpg

From left to right:
1) ams brass 250
2) svrr AL 250
3) Aristo brass 332
4) Llagas 1/32 code 215
5) Llagss G code 215 spaced closer together
6) some COCRY ties
7) ME G

-Ray


----------



## adelmo (Jan 2, 2008)

I am planning a DCC track power outdoor layout.

Have brass track, would the 332 offer better signal strength due to greater rail area?


----------



## GaryY (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By adelmo on 17 Jan 2010 12:17 PM 
I am planning a DCC track power outdoor layout.

Have brass track, would the 332 offer better signal strength due to greater rail area? 




Good question. I was just thinking the same thing....Is there are any noticible conductivity variances between the sizes?

Gary


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Brass track tends to oxidide which is no good for electrici conductivity or digital signals. . Most Code 250 rail is made either from stailnless steel or nickel. So your trains a runing already, while your brass compagneros are still polishng their track. 

In Germany, we ran cars along and across various Code 250 track. It did not harm. Try that with your Code 332 rail. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Code 332 is "more forgiving" when used in a garden setting. Stuff gets between the rails and track work may shift over time and the additional height provides clearance (ever scrape the step on your Geep on a low spot?), yes, even for wheel flanges that hit on the ballast.

Ever try to place an LGB track magnet sensor or Kadee coupler magnet on Code 250? Try to use an LGB turnout motor and not have the cover rub by passing rolling stock.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I've been using code 250 outdoors for 14 years, and was using code 332 for 20 years prior to that. I've never had a derailment on code 250 track caused by something that would not have derailed the same train on code 332. Twigs, acorns, etc. are going to trip up your train regardless. I've never had ballast cause a derailment unless it got lodged in a switch flangeway. Todd's points about track magnets, etc. are well worth noting, but you can mitigate those easily enough. Flanges--even the oldest uber-deep LGB flanges--aren't an issue on code 250. 

As for strength, put a proper foundation under your track and you won't have any trouble. I walk on my code 250 more often than I should, and the only kink I've ever made was when I tripped over a bridge. With the strengths of different rail materials, it may well be possible that stainless code 250 would be stronger than aluminum code 332 anyway. Size is only half the equation in the durability department. 

Something to ponder... In HO scale, most manufacturers and modelers have moved away from the venerable code 100 track that was used for decades on end because it looks unrealistically large. In 1:29--which is 3 times as large as HO scale (1:87)--code 100 rail would scale to .300", smaller than our code 332. So, our trains are running on rail that scales out to be _larger_ than what's commonly used in the smaller scales. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The above post seems to be responding to Todd's post and mine. 

I do have larger that scale ballast, and it has caused derailments when not properly positioned. Could it cause a derailment on 250 and not 332? well, only if it was over .25" and under .332".... that's an easy question to answer. 

Sure it is technically taller, but it's probably a very small percentage where the taller rail would make a difference. So my opinion is that in this case 332 is an advantage, but not huge. 

But on strength, it's a little flippant to say put a foundation under your track. Just go out in the back yard, pull up all the track, lay perfectly flat concrete and put the track on it? 

Code 250 will always be more subject to being damaged when stepped on unless you have laid it directly on a hard flat surface. 

This is just like the height issue, it's not black or white, code 250 is just more fragile. Kevin has never hurt his track, others have bent theirs from stepping on it, or kids, or dogs, or deer. 

So you have to decide... if you want it the most indestructible.. go bigger and a more solid roadbed... If you never will have traffic, animals, and never trip, you could probably put code 200 on foam rubber! 

My personal experience has been good with 332 stainless, but I'm thinking of trying 250, and I'm prepared for more fragility, but the stainless in 250 may be as tough as brass in 332. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

I suppose you will damage evey kind of track if walking on it, if it has no suitable foundation. LGB hired an elephant, when they introduced their 45mm track more than 40 years ago. 

My neighbour uses his wife' s big BMW to demonstrate the toughness of the Code 250 steel track and the ties he offers: 










Over here, customers like the idea, that they can get the profiles in 10 feet lengths which makes track laying much faster and easier than to puzzle tiny bits and pieces of ready made track together. 


Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

JMHO, but I don't think it's good idea to step on your rail and track EVER. At the Los Angeles Live Steamers layout here in Griffth Park, it is pretty much taboo (unwritten law) to actually step on the track. PERIOD. You step over it. AND this stuff is 3.5", 4.75" and 7.5" gauge. I believe the smaller gauges are still aluminum. But in the last ten years, the 7.5" gauge sluminum rail has been replaced with steel rail, including all the turnouts and crossings.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I did not think people are espousing walking on or driving cars or using elephants on track! 

I interpreted this as examples of "toughness". Again, on a nice flat, hard surface, most track can handle a car driving on it. 

By the way, an elephant's foot is pretty big, less force per unit area than a woman's stiletto heel! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Not really a good test. The rubber of the tires conform too easily. The real test is to step on just _one of the two rails with your heel and twist your foot to the side_ without having the rail come out from the tie or deflect.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

In terms of handling deflection from the side, that's as much a function of the ties as the rails themselves. From a physics standpoint, code 332 rail is taller, hence something catching the top of the rail and pushing it over would have greater leverage than on smaller rail. What makes the track more durable in that instance isn't so much the rail (though the thicker cross section is a mitigating factor), but the spike detail that holds the rail to the ties. This is where code 332 has a distinct advantage. On most commercial track, the spile/chair detail is very hefty and resilient. Not so much on the code 250 ties, which tend towards a much more "scale" spike detail. So, even with a bit less leverage acting on the rail twisting it over, the force keeping it from twisting over is lesser still, so it's more prone to pop out of the ties. 

To give an idea of just how much more substantial the spike detail is on code 332, I just measured the distance from the railhead to the top of the spike/chair detail on my AMS code 250 and my Aristo code 332. Both are 3/16". (Also serves as an illustration to debunk the "won't take deep flanges" myth.) 

...Kevin has never hurt his track... 
Not for lack of tryin'  I've had plenty of "incidents"--especially on my old railroad in Rochester (code 250 aluminum with Llagas ties). That was just floating, and frequently would get snagged and pulled up by extension cords, hoses, the neighbor's cat who decided that Orbisonia looked like a mighty fine litter box, the neighbor's dog deciding to act as Orbisonia's watchdog chasing the cat from her preferred "spot," the occasional deer, and other intrusions (including the other neighbor's snowmobile! Yeah, they got a talkin' to after that one...) Maybe I'm just charmed, but the only time I had any damage was when the ice storm knocked down half of my maple tree. Safe to say I don't think the size of the rail would have made much difference there. In the other instances, I just reset the track into the ballast and kept going. 

It's those kinds of "things that go bump" intrusions which prompted me to use my PVC pipe subroadbed on my current railroad. It's not so much to give it a solid foundation by itself--I'm still relying on the bed of crusher fines for that--but to add a large degree of resistance to the track being pulled up. It seems have worked very well. I've snagged my extension cords and garden hose on it numerous times and it doesn't budge. Oddly, it was the PVC subroadbed that _caused_ the kink when I tripped over the bridge. If the subroadbed wasn't there, my foot would have just lifted the track for a few feet to either side of the bridge. It still may have kinked, who knows. 

BTW, a dual-rail railbender does a really good job of straightening kinks. I managed to kink a section of track that I had removed for maintenance (I just forgot it was behind me instead of where it belonged on the roadbed in front of me). I had the Train-li railbender out as part of the maintenance process, and I just ran that over the kink a few times. Worked it right out. 

I should qualify one statement I made earlier about ballast "never" causing a derailment. I have had ballast cause derailments either after a rain storm or after reballasting, but only when I'm too lazy to actually inspect the track prior to running, making sure there are no piles of ballast where there oughtn't be. Again, though, the instances of that on code 250 vs. 332 are not significantly different in my experience. Once the track is clear, such obstructions don't "pop up" like twigs, acorns, and other debris do during an operating session. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Vertical kinks, the kind you get from stepping on track, are not removed by rail benders. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Vertical kinks, the kind you get from stepping on track, are not removed by rail benders. 

Au contraire, mon ami. Au contraire... The Train-li railbender's main rollers have a flange that grips up underneath the railhead. That pulls the rail up against the bender as you pass over it. For dips resulting from "giant missteps," it worked surprisingly well. I didn't know if it would or not, so I just tried it. Son-of-a-gun it did a dandy job. I wouldn't have mentioned it if it didn't. It's not quite as effective for peaks (such as those caused by pulling the track up as a result of tripping over a bridge). Peaks can sometimes be resolved by strategically applied "giant missteps."

You do need that flange to pull on the railhead; so if your railbender doesn't have that, it's not going to work for you. 


Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sharp kinks do not come out... Bends and dips I agree... 

Kinks, especially in metals that work harden easily are almost impossible to get rid of, there's lots of posts where it was easier to cut out the damaged piece. 

Funny thing, it seems easier to straighten SS than brass or aluminum when it's a sharp "kink"... 

Greg


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 18 Jan 2010 12:49 PM 

To give an idea of just how much more substantial the spike detail is on code 332, I just measured the distance from the railhead to the top of the spike/chair detail on my AMS code 250 and my Aristo code 332. Both are 3/16". (Also serves as an illustration to debunk the "won't take deep flanges" myth.) 






Not entirely. While the distance between the railhead and "top of the spike" may be similar, as you note, the Code 332 ties are more robust and the tip of the spike sits higher from the top of the ties than on Code 250. Lots of ballast sits on/between the ties and leans against the railhead and the Code 332 increases this distance giving the flanges more room to the ballast and obstructions.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

No doubt, in many cases it's easier to replace the rail than it is to unkink it, especially if you're using sectional track. In this case, the sharp kink was minimized by a bit of "friendly persuasion" over a convenient rock to get the major part of the kink straightened to where it was more of a dip with a small valley, then smoothed out with the railbender. I was surprised it worked as well as it did. I can't see any signs of damage. I tried the railbender on the kink at the bridge, but it's a peak, not a valley, so less prone to successful adjustment. The bender got the lateral kinks smoothed out, but there's still about a 1/16" vertical kink that can still be seen. I didn't feel like removing the track to apply a similar bit of "friendly persuasion," and since (a) it's on a siding, and (b) nothing's yet to derail on it, I think I'll let it go. Actually, the snow has finally melted to expose some frost heave issues, so I'll probably remove all the track from that part anyway this spring and have another go at leveling it off. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Todd, I get what you're saying. The "myth" I was referring to is the belief that deep-flanged equipment won't run on code 250 specifically because the flanges hit the spike detail with the smaller rail. Debris on the track is an entirely different issue. Absolutely, the extra .082" between the top of the ties and the railhead gives you a bit more breathing room for debris. In my experience, I don't think it makes any difference in a practical sense. The number of debris-caused derailments on my dad's code 332 track is not any less than the number of derailments on my code 250. I've always been amazed at the ability for bits of detritus to find their way across rails that just two minutes prior were devoid of anything.  

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)




----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Walking on model track or sending elephatns or cars ovr it is not really a way to make a decision for the choice of rail. That is smple advertising to attract customer' s attention. 

Let' s face it. Lower profiles with a suitable trackbed simply look better with model trains. In many cases it is even cheaper, because it uses less material than the massive curtain-rail-type. 

I understand, decades ago when LGB introduced their garden track, modelled after vintage Swiss Metre gauge track, there were no alternatives. So millions of miles were bought and laid into gardens. Some makers later used it as guidelines for their own products, so some people believe, it is the State of the Art. It works and it seems to ast forever. Something you' d expect from a quality product. 

Today modellers have a large choice of different seized rail profiles from various materials and a choice different trackbed. (sleepers, ties) 
Most people will agree, that a 1 : 29 standard gauge modell should run on different track than a 1 : 20 Shay or Climax, even if the gauge is the same. 

But many people invested many thousands of Dollars, Deutschmarks or Euro in the overseized track many years ago. If it works and you are happy with it, why should you change. But if somebody is starting all over again (like myself) or is new to the hobby, he or she should consider getting the best track one can afford. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

There might be rails in there somewhere... 

(Illustrating no particular point, just a cool photo.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I completely agree Fritz, like I said, starting over I would go code 250, and I have no elephants. 

I might just do that if my code 332 SS turnouts start to rot. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SE18 (Feb 21, 2008)

nice photo and ground cover, Kevin, is that 250? I know you built the line not that many years ago but it looks like it's been there forever. 

I have used code 332 but changed it all to 250 and sort of like the smaller profile, not that I have anything against 332


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Code 250 and creeping thyme. "Creeping" is very much a misnomer. For those modeling southern railroads, the stuff's scale Kudzu. Grows just as flippin' fast. I'll cut it out well clear of the tracks, then a month later, it's back to looking like this. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

We are getting a bit away from talking about Code 250 / 332 track. The EBT picture looks great, but most of us never see their layout from such a low angle. 

If it is on groundlevel, we see it like a bird flying 150 feet above the real thing. Try yourself and you will realize your garden R never looks like the 1 . 1 line in the neighbourhood. 

Regarding weed and plants. One day I will try the British receipt. A mixture of sand, conrete and peat into the gravel. Most plants don' t like it, but moss will grow very soon (at least in Brit. weather conditions) 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## SE18 (Feb 21, 2008)

Fritz, 

Getting further from the discussion, I did the Rowlins mixture you describe about 2 months ago. I'm hoping to encourage algea, moss, bacteria, viruses or whatever else is green. While Kevin's photo looks great, an overabundance of creeping thyme might conceivably interfere with operations (although it can be trimmed). The Rowlins mix, I'm hoping, will encourage the look of a very light industrial railroad. And, since I replaced the 332 with the 250, it scales the whole thing down to the effect I'm trying to get


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

How about the Yankees this year?










Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

but most of us never see their layout from such a low angle. 
Which is decidedly a pity, really. To miss out on that perspective of our trains running through the garden is--in my opinion--to miss out on easily half of the fun of trains this size. Why build them with as much detail as they have only to look at them from the top? You get a better sense of sheer size of the prototype far easier than you would even on a well-detailed HO railroad. Nothing puts you into a different world than stepping out of your usual perspective and getting up close. 

Try yourself and you will realize your garden R never looks like the 1 . 1 line in the neighbourhood. 
That depends on what motivates you. If it's simple animation in a garden setting, then no; I can't remember the last time I saw an 8' wide petunia sitting beside the prototype. On the other hand, there are a good number of garden railroads which look very much like the real thing when viewed at ground level. Why else would we spend so much time paying attention to the miniature plants as we do? Sure, there are always some things that will be out of perfect scale, but our brains have a tendency to see around that. It's more atmosphere than actuality, but on some railroads, the line between the two is decidedly thin. 

an overabundance of creeping thyme might conceivably interfere with operations... 
It does have a hearty appetite for journal covers. Fortunately the leaves and branches are small enough to run over without trouble. (Well, in a battery-powered arena, anyway. Smushed thyme leaves aren't conductive.) 

How about the Yankees this year? 
With what they're paying A-Rod, if they don't lock up the pennant after the first week of the season, they're worthless.  

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)




----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Here is an old LGB train on Code 250 SS track, nailed to some African hardwood sleepers. 










On exposed places like bridges or stations lower profile looks better. Should paint the rails one of these days, but have the trestle store away at the moment. 

If somebody is looking for German made SS Code 250 rail or European narrow gauge ties for the Llagas 250 rails, simply ask Bill from Llagas Creek. On the other side, if somebody in Europe needs parts from Llagas, ask my neighour Mr. Klebsch www.miha-modell.de/ 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Otter 1


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Fritz on 22 Jan 2010 05:09 AM 

We are getting a bit away from talking about Code 250 / 332 track. The EBT picture looks great, but most of us never see their layout from such a low angle. 

If it is on groundlevel, we see it like a bird flying 150 feet above the real thing. Try yourself and you will realize your garden R never looks like the 1 . 1 line in the neighbourhood. 

Regarding weed and plants. One day I will try the British receipt. A mixture of sand, conrete and peat into the gravel. Most plants don' t like it, but moss will grow very soon (at least in Brit. weather conditions) 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen 



You don't have to get on the ground to appreciate keeping things _near scale_. This was taken at a distance of about 3-4 feet. The picture also illustrates that once the ties are ballasted and the ground cover grows in, it is not easy to differentiate the rail code at 10 feet away. Finally, it illustrates the reason that one would want to use larger rails/ties in a garden setting. It gets your trains up out of the detritus, stones, soil, ground cover, etc. that "mound up" along the railheads.


----------



## placitassteam (Jan 2, 2008)

The only problem I have had with SVRR code 250 was from wild horses stepping on it. I Now have an electric fence around the RR. A toy train with huge flanges had problems but that is the only one.


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

A beautiful layout with the 1 : 20,3 Shay on Swiss type Metre gauge track. Once the track is grown in, it is hard to tell from a normal viewing distance for untrained eyes what kind of track is used. 

The WHF (World Hedgehog Foundation) recommends lower profiles in public gardens for safety reasons. They tend to break their legs on overseized track. : 












They say you don´t have to use smaller sleepers, when using lower profiles. They say, simpy keep it in scale with your rolling stock. 

I noticed, since I got these hedgehogs running round in the garden, no elephants or horses are around. They probably fear stepping on them. 


Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Is that a DCC hedgehog, or is it battery powered? 

By the way, what is the depth of the phalanges (look it up) on a hedgehog? code 250 is ok?


Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Got to be battery as it would short out with the pan across both rails.







Later RJD


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Fritz, to properly provide for such fauna, do you need a hedge fund? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

I never took any of the local narrow gauge hedgehogs apart. I suppose they run on some kind of bio diesel batteries. I don' t think, it is photovoltaic, since they only come around to raid the night trains. 











So far I have not yet found out, which type of sleepers (ties) they prefer. Handnailed on wood or the more traditional ready made plastic trackbed. 












The Shortline miniature elephants, used when it does not make sense to fire up a locomotive, prefer the wooden type of sleepers. 










I don´t, since it means drilling 6-8 wholes per tie and driving hundreds or thousands of spikes home. 


Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------

