# 1/29th Scale, which ties, 1/24 or 1/32 for code 250?



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

I'll be laying about 900 feet of track and am looking at both Llagas Creek and Sunset Valley code 250 aluminum and SS as options. The problem though is you get a more realistic rail with code 250 but neither (and no one) makes code 250 ties for 1/29. The choices are 1/24 and 1/32 so what to do.... 1/32 looks too small, 1/24 ties actually have nearly perfect dimensions of 1/29 from my measurements but the spacing is WAY too far apart, about half again as much or more.


What have most people done? Is one easier to ballast? Is it better to go with the larger wider ties for stablization of track/locos as they run? Are there any other engineering facts to consider when picking 1/32 or 1/24 ties?


I have 30+ Aristo and USA locos and about 150 assorted rolling stock (so mainly all 1/29th scale gear). I do hope to get a K-27 or larger steam loco one day but I have a 4.5' radius (9' diameter) 180 degree turn around at end of the mainline (otherwise it's 6'+ radius curves) so that one radius is my limiting factor (I will have #6 switches min around track and yard). 

I have samples of Llagas Creek and SVR rail and ties and each companies 1/32 ties looks oddly small to me, but I'm not a true scale modeler yet to know which tie has fewer cons for "scale" look or which side is better to error on. 

What are everyones thoughts and what have most people done when in this situation? I've asked a few non-railroaders (wife and friend) and they thought the 1/24 ties looked better than 1/32 ties. Not quit scientific.


Thanks,


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Brandon,

Hopefully Paul Burch will chime in here and post some pictures of his layout using SV code 250 aluminum rail on SV 1/29 standard gauge ties. You can see for yourself just how nice, well weathered and scale ballast can really look! Some pictures he has posted here and has sent me, look like photos taken on a 1:1 prototype railroad. I defy you to tell the difference.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

Posted By Gary Armitstead on 13 Feb 2012 09:34 PM 
Brandon,

Hopefully Paul Burch will chime in here and post some pictures of his layout using SV code 250 aluminum rail on SV 1/29 standard gauge ties. You can see for yourself just how nice, well weathered and scale ballast can really look! Some pictures he has posted here and has sent me, look like photos taken on a 1:1 prototype railroad. I defy you to tell the difference.

But SV doesn't make 1/29 ties, they make 1/22-1/24'ish ties and 1/32 scale ties... The ties look great, no doubt about it, but they're about a half inch to narrow and 1/8" too short for 1/29 from my measurements.


----------



## Dan Pantages (Jan 2, 2008)

LC makes what they call a black "G" scale tie, have a look at it. Ties are not longer in a larger scale they stick out the same distance from the rail. Accucraft makes a narrow gauge tie that is much longer than their standard gauge ties but railroads did not use standard gauge ties for laying narrow gauge track. If your track represents 2 foot the ties should not be 5 feet long. Hard to explain, the ratio of ties length to track gauge should be the same. No one makes 1/29 scale ties because trains don’t run on 4.229 foot gauge. You’ve said, “I'm not a true scale modeler yet to know which tie has fewer cons for "scale" look or which side is better to error on.” You have reached the time when you have to decide and make the big decision. What’s wrong with asking non-railroaders for their opinion, at least they’re not hung up on scale, is 1/32 correct or is 1/29 correct. You must remember the “G” in G scale stands for Goofy Gauge. 

I used LC “G” scale ties and it looks fine, I just have to paint the screw heads holding it down, they make it look like an English electric stud railroad in movies.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

1:32 is slightly closer to 1:29 than 1:24 is. I would go with the 1:32 ties myself. I think it only looks wrong because we're so used to seeing wider-spaced LGB style track as the norm.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

If you are modeling in 1/29, that is standard gauge, so you should definately go with the 1/32 scale ties..
1/24 scale ties would look "narrow gauge"..what is the sense of switching to code 250 rail, for the realism, only to kill the realism with a major tie style mismatch?  Posted By Dan Pantages on 14 Feb 2012 01:45 AM 
but railroads did not use standard gauge ties for laying narrow gauge track. Historically, that is probably correct, they didnt use standard gauge ties.. but history never stops..today there is a 2-foot gauge railroad that *is* using standard gauge ties! 
If you want to model the modern Maine Narrow Gauge Museum railroad in Portland, you would use 'standard gauge" rail (much heavier than historic Maine 2-footer rail) and standard gauge ties!
They used both, because they were readily available..(the ties might have still been in place..they just re-gauged the standard gauge track to 2-foot gauge!) 


from:
[url="http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/Scottychaos/29n2/29n2-page2.html"]Scots 29n2 scale webpage[/url]
Scot


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Brandon,

OK, here is one shot of Paul Burch's layout in Washington.

The rail is Sunset Valley code 250 aluminum, sitting on Sunset Valley 1/32, standard gauge ties (also could be 1/29, if you want to get "anal" about it). Rail is spray painted with rust-o-leum "rust". Now you tell me, does this look OK to you? What I'm trying say is that with the rail "weathered" and a good looking ballast, you will NEVER see the difference you are worried about. I know some folks are building some scale model track in 1/29 (scale ties, spikes, fishplates and tie plates). Frankly I don't have two or three lifetimes to build my railroad. I build with what is already available. Good luck on your quest.









Forgive me Paul, for using your picture, to make an illustration here.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Gary, thanks for the photo! 
yep, that is definately the way to go.. 
compare the photo of Paul's layout to the (scale) diagram of standard gauge track directly above it.. 
looks pretty close!  

yes, its true that neither 1/24 or 1/32 scale ties are absolutely "correct" for 1/29 gauge.. 
(but 1/29 itself is not exacty correct itself!  
but 1/24 scale ties are much "less correct", and 1/32 ties are much "more correct", for 1/29 scale.. 
better in tie spacing and tie length..it just looks right for standard gauge.. 
IMO, 1/24 ties shouldnt even be under consideration for 1/29 scale.. 

Scot


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Scot, 

There was an old saying in the die shops when I was working. The young guys would lay out a die (scribe lines in the steel) and CONSTANTLY recheck and recheck. Took them forever to finally put the steel on a mill and cut the impression. The saying went something like this...."Quit aimin' and start shootin' ". I kinda feel this MIGHT relate to this thread. Just sayin'.


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Brandon,
I have been using Sunset Valley from the beginning for my 1/29 layout.  I looked at LC 1/32 tie strip but it has a very delicate look to it and I don't think will hold up well outside.   There is another choice now.  Accucraft standard gauge tie strip with SVRR rail.   I have a box here now and the SVRR rail fits it very well.   I'm going to try some on a stub  siding that I'm about to install.  Thanks to Gary for posting the photo.  My track ia all  on  concrete roadbed. Here are a couple more photos.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Paul, that shot with the snow is a beautiful photo. That looks like a real 1:1 train there. 

Ed


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

Posted By Scottychaos on 14 Feb 2012 05:54 AM 








http://hawkinsrails.net/lagniappe/mngrm/mngrm_lagn8.jpg" />
(not my photo)
If your track represents 2 foot the ties should not be 5 feet long. Hard to explain, the ratio of ties length to track gauge should be the same.
From what I saw, I thought mainline US was 7"x9" and 8' 9" long? 


I would have to admit I'm a little bit of a perfectionist but with almost a thousand feet of track I'd hate to end up wishing I had with a different tie if one were to be more stable or hold ballast better. The LC ties are very square/sharp edged, which is probably better for holding ballast but also sharp enough that you don't want to have it rub across something important (I put it on my wood desk and while turning from side to side with an FA1 on it, the sharp edge scratched the desk surface. 


But I think what I'm hearing is a wider tie won't offer any useful extra stabilization and maybe my 7"x9"x7'6" tie dimensions aren't correct. Also that winter shot is amazing, I thought it was 1:1 at first, I had to look for the missing wires on the power lines to be certain.


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Brandon,
Just measured some SVRR and Accucraft 1/32 ties. They both have about he same dimensions. In 1/32 they are about 8'5" long by about 8" by 7". That would be about 7'' 8" in 1/29. Once the track is down and ballasted you won't see the difference. The ties on the Accucraft strip are a little more square like the L.C. Same height as the SVRR. I can send you a few inches of the Accucraft if you want. Just e-mail me. I learned years ago that trying to be too perfect with an outdoor railroad just leads to frustration. Build solid smooth track and you will be happy.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

Paul: Thanks for the offer but I think with your description and some Euro accucraft aluminum rail (display/testing) I'm good. I'm starting to see that this perfectionism isn't going to end well. I've even been trying to figure out if the if LC's narrower 5mm rail is more to scale than say SVR's 6mm rail. I think if there were a true "1/29 code 250" rail choice I'd go with that regardless any small quirks it had but since I have to error one direction or another I become worried about picking ties that are too narrow if it looks bad when I get 1/24 locos or if it's not as "stable" or won't hold ballast as well as the narrow gauge ties that have larger gaps between rails and wider ties. 

Here is a picture of my samples I've bought or had sent to me: 
 
To note, the dual gauge SVR track has the SVR 7mm rail in it, the 6mm LC rail with standard gauge ties is the bulk of what you see, with the SVR standard gauge (1/32) ties placed between some of the LC 1/32 ties just for visual comparison. 


When I looked at photos online of locos over ties, the ties came just about to the sides of the loco which isn't the case as you can see in this picture, which is why I was siding with 1/24 narrow gauge ties and I figured the wider ties would be more 'stable' and make ballasting easier, but it sounds like those are all incorrect theories? I also think the graining in the LC looks more realistic than SVR and the SVR ties are a bit glossy which I wonder if that's a con or if it will dull out. SVR ties are tapered which could help in holding track down yet LC is very sharp on the corners which also might hold track ballasted in crushed rock (with sharp corners as well) better.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Brandon on 14 Feb 2012 03:55 PM 
Paul: Thanks for the offer but I think with your description and some Euro accucraft aluminum rail (display/testing) I'm good. I'm starting to see that this perfectionism isn't going to end well. I've even been trying to figure out if the if LC's narrower 5mm rail is more to scale than say SVR's 6mm rail. I think if there were a true "1/29 code 250" rail choice I'd go with that regardless any small quirks it had but since I have to error one direction or another I become worried about picking ties that are too narrow if it looks bad when I get 1/24 locos or if it's not as "stable" or won't hold ballast as well as the narrow gauge ties that have larger gaps between rails and wider ties. 

Here is a picture of my samples I've bought or had sent to me: 
 
To note, the dual gauge SVR track has the SVR 7mm rail in it, the 6mm LC rail with standard gauge ties is the bulk of what you see, with the SVR standard gauge (1/32) ties placed between some of the LC 1/32 ties just for visual comparison. 


When I looked at photos online of locos over ties, the ties came just about to the sides of the loco which isn't the case as you can see in this picture, which is why I was siding with 1/24 narrow gauge ties and I figured the wider ties would be more 'stable' and make ballasting easier, but it sounds like those are all incorrect theories? I also think the graining in the LC looks more realistic than SVR and the SVR ties are a bit glossy which I wonder if that's a con or if it will dull out. SVR ties are tapered which could help in holding track down yet LC is very sharp on the corners which also might hold track ballasted in crushed rock (with sharp corners as well) better. Brandon,

You are REALLY in a quandary here, correct? Now, mind you, I'm building a Colorado narrow gauge railroad and I'm using SV code 250 rail with SV NG ties on most of my layout. What...MOST?! Yes because I'm using AMS NG ties on a few of my bridges. I'm also using GMM ties and catwalks on my two truss bridges (48" steel and 60" aluminum), a 48" open deck bridge and 16 feet of arch bridges. The AMS ties are going on a set of open deck bridges on a 90 inch radius curve. The remainder will be SV NG ties. I DO like the AMS NG ties better, but they are not always available. So you DO have to make compromises now and then. We all have done that here. It just comes with the hobby in large scale. Remember what Paul told you, you won't notice any of these SLIGHT differences from two or three feet away and five years from now, YOU WILL forget the differences! The hobby is for enjoyment and relaxation. Just find the ties that satisfy you and START building. No matter how much you worry about this decision and do all the planning, down the line eventually you'll say to yourself "I wish I had done it another way". It's happened to everyone of us. Enjoy the hobby.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Or another solution is to cut your own ties from wood, and hand lay! I'm a 1/29 modeler and I decided early on that I would hand lay all of my track, for a couple of reasons. First it's cheaper as you only have to buy the rail, and not manufactured ties ( just quickly added up that I've spend a total of ~$1600 just on rail alone, and that's a small layout!). Secondly you can cut your ties to your own individual length, and spike at what ever centerline you want (~22" for mainline, changes with secondary lines, and yard tracks), and thirdly it takes time to hand lay track. I know that sounds weird but I get enjoyment working on my railroad. Yes it's a lot easier to use flex track and just lay it down, but the cost per 'entertainment' time is quite high. On the other hand if it takes me a couple of hours to spike rail I've got a 'cheap entertainment." 

Or a completely different method that I've been exploring lately, and am now moving forward with is to move beyond 45mm gauge for 1/29 and lay track at the correct spacing. Can I notice it 3-4' away? No, but I know it's wrong. I had about ~200-300 feet of track down in 45mm gauge but I knew it wasn't right and it bugged me. So starting over I'm making it right the first time... Yes it's a bit harder, but again it's more value for my dollar!  

Here's my point: If you having problems deciding if 1/32 ties are correct for 1/29, then most likely at some point in time down the road your going to be disappointed that 1/29 on 45mm gauge isn't correct and want to change it. So either decide now that 1/32 ties and track is close enough, or move towards a prototypical setup and build your own... 
Craig


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I have to say if you are this concerned about the ties--and there's nothing wrong with that, I'm not, but I can see the point of accuracy--then you will really be bugged by the sight of 1:29 on 45 mm rails. I think you're at the point where hand laying makes sense.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

I've debated hand laying but 900' of track and 30+ switches makes me worry about doing it all just right whereas molded ties and experienced switch makers will do far better than I would for that much track. I'll leave another piece of my perfectionism at the backyard door and go with 1/32. I must admit though, I was surprised that no one had commented about ballasting pros/cons of one tie vs another or about the stability of the track/ballast over time on various sized ties.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

900' off track isn't really that much! Another option is to make a few ties of your own, and then learning casting techniques. You can cast in resin, and then you can have 'manufactured' track like you want. Making turnouts isn't that hard especially if you buy premade frogs and points. Again if want you can cast your own turnout ties too... 
I don't think the ballast issue is that big of an issue, rather its the type of base that you use. I've tried the trench and fill method with llagas track and didn't have any major problems. That said, my next layout is going to be different! I'm thinking about elevating 2-3' off the ground for operating reasons. 

Craig


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I'll cast a vote for the 1:32 ties. Once they're in the ground with a good layer of ballast, they'll disappear (visually) anyway. 



















I've got vastly different tie sizes on my switches (Sunset Valley) vs. my track (AMS). When I first started laying the track, I was horrified by the size difference. Once I put it down and ballasted, my concerns were erased. (And I'm very OC about aesthetics on the railroad...) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dick Friedman (Aug 19, 2008)

A suggestion that worked for me. I made my ties scale with and length, but since I cut them from fence boards, I left them the depth of the fence board -- about 5/8th inch US. The extra depth gives a better bite into the right of way. After the track was built, I ran a redwood spline under the rail and ties to reinforce the whole thing. Then a slight excavation on the right of way and some crushed rock. I laid the track on top of the gravel, poured ballast over the whole mess, and pulled the track up to grade. The track has been on/in the ground for about three years, hasn't moved and is very solid. 

Built my Llagas Creek switches the same way for outdoors. For indoors, I actually cut the ties to match the depth of the plastic ties on the adjacent track.


----------

