# HO Track Rail - Why Not Like 1/43?



## Grandcheapskate

I was in Target today checking out the 1/43rd section (or what's left of it) and there's a question which has always nagged me. How come HO track cannot be made like 1/43 (and I assume 1/32 and 1/24) track with nice wide flat consistant height rails instead of the skinny rails that have been used by every manufacturer?

It seems to me that the rail height on 1/43 track, even the cheap stuff, is far more consistant, due to the way it's installed, than HO track. With a narrower slot and rails a bit closer, I do not see why HO track cannot be made this way. It seems the electrical connection would also be better.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## 1976Cordoba

Cost perhaps.


----------



## Dslot

Ugliness maybe. HO track was designed when it was a tossup whether the product was going to find its market in racing or in model roadways to match model railways. If you wanted it to look more or less like a real highway, you can't have giant silver stripes running down the middle of the lanes.

Or friction. Since the system was designed for vibrator cars, the thin rail might have been a way to reduce sliding friction for the little underpowered contraptions.

-- D


----------



## SwamperGene

And with the extra friction comes noise. :freak:


----------



## Montoya1

Would you also get more magnetic attraction?


----------



## renter39

I have long wondered if it is time for a redesign of H.O. track. Routing the rail pocket is the hardest part of track building,flat braid can be had as small or smaller than 1/16, running a router with a larger bit a second time around and installing braid along side of slot is easier and more appealing to the eye.The creator of the G-Jet was interviewed about his change to a 12 volt arm. he replied we were hanging on to a standard based in 1950 ,the same way I feel about track.Somewhere in a pit kit I have an odd guide from a AFX rig which looks like a miniature 1/32 flag guide triangular in shape.Brass Riggens would be a natural starting point only mod would be guide change,sratchduilt chassis would be easier to make without worrying about shoe design.As you can tell I have given this some thought but to scared to try,don't want to be racing by myself on my revolutionary new track,hard to change 60 yrs of a bad design now.On second thought maybe I will just move to 1/43 but Racemasters new designs keep pulling me back in DAMN YOU WAHOO !!


----------



## Dslot

Back around 1970, Bachmann's slot track used HO model railroad rail for the power strips. The rail was upside down, with the broad base (maybe 1/8"?) as the contact surface and the railhead locking the rail into the plastic. The connectors were similar to Atlas slot track. The slot spacing was wider than Aurora, more like Tyco track.

Clearly, the track was not successful, so the wide power strips did not provide enough advantage (if any) to offset its technical or marketing drawbacks. I think the rail was brass, so maybe the lack of grip for magnet cars doomed it. Or maybe it was Bachmann's graba$$ marketing strategy and lack of longterm commitment to the product. Or just the fact that it was a latecomer to the market.

Even though it had wider power rails, the Bachmann track lacked two features of the larger-scale style track:
-- The strip was a solid, drawn piece of metal, so it may have lacked the cost saving advantage of the flat sheet-metal strips (although using rr rails may have been even cheaper, since Bachmann was already set up to produce those in huge quantities). 
-- The power strips still used the wide spacing of Aurora's system, instead of the "snug against the slot" narrow spacing of the larger systems. I don't know what advantages the wide spacing confers, but it does make a compact, swiveling guide-flag/pickup unit difficult; it also makes producing a narrow the chassis difficult, as witness the Aurora slimline with its wide running boards to mount the pickup shoes, and the Atlas slimline, with its shoes angling outward from the center.

Any new track with the narrower next-to-the-slot rail spacing would not be usable with existing cars, unless it had extremely wide metal strips (basically shiny metal most of the width of the car). And any cars made to use the tracks would be unusable on conventional track, unless they had extremely wide pickup shoes, partially negating the advantage of a narrow pickup unit.

I doubt that HO slots are a big enough market to support a changeover of standards that make millions of existing cars obsolete.

-- D


----------



## ParkRNDL

hey D, thanks for that. I have a bunch of Bachmann cars, but I've never seen the track before; I had no idea they used a different kind of rail. Another little piece of slot car history that I picked up today.

Very interesting that they use Atlas/Lionel-style connectors. Wonder if Bachmann and Atlas are compatible? I use Atlas myself, and the Atlas lane spacing is the same as Tyco...

--rick


----------



## Grandcheapskate

Dslot said:


> Any new track with the narrower next-to-the-slot rail spacing would not be usable with existing cars, unless it had extremely wide metal strips (basically shiny metal most of the width of the car). And any cars made to use the tracks would be unusable on conventional track, unless they had extremely wide pickup shoes, partially negating the advantage of a narrow pickup unit.
> 
> I doubt that HO slots are a big enough market to support a changeover of standards that make millions of existing cars obsolete.
> 
> -- D


Hi D,
I did not mean to imply that the rails should be moved closer to the slot than existing track. HO cars cannot run (well) without modification on 1/43rd track. You need to make two changes to run existing HO cars on a 1/43rd style track; (1) reduce the width of the slot and (2) bring the rails to the same spacing as standard HO track.

I was just wondering why HO track could not use the same wide rails and general design as 1/43rd. It's way too late in the game, and too small a customer base, for anyone to produce a new plastic track system from scratch (though many improvements could be made). It just seems that the 1/43rd style of track is a better design than any HO track today (except maybe for the old Atlas track).

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Sir Slotsalot

I'd like to see round wire power rails for home sets. I've got to believe the smooth surface would be way easier on p/u shoes. There is a guy in Ohio (Mark's Model World) who built his tracks using welding wire. I talked with him on the phone recently and he swears by it. Check out his pics.
http://www.myspace.com/marksmodelworld

Granted, it's more expensive than the "ever-popular" stitching or flat wire, but I get tired of replacing p/u shoes after about 100-200 laps. The cost savings in shoes, even in bulk quantities at $1/pr, would cover the cost difference pretty quick. Call me crazy but I would pay extra for an AFX or any brand of track that features round wire. When I build my routed track, I will definately use round wire. There is some pretty cool nikel/iron alloy stuff out there. I got some samples at .045" and .062" diameters. It's flexible, has excellent electrical capacity and great magnetic "stick".

Sorry, this was supposed to be a "quick" reply and I got carried away.


----------



## Dslot

Sir Slotsalot said:


> I'd like to see round wire power rails for home sets. I've got to believe the smooth surface would be way easier on p/u shoes. ... it's more expensive than the "ever-popular" stitching or flat wire, but I get tired of replacing p/u shoes after about 100-200 laps. The cost savings in shoes, even in bulk quantities at $1/pr, would cover the cost difference pretty quick. Call me crazy but I would pay extra for an AFX or any brand of track that features round wire.


Makes me wonder if there'd be any money in marketing one of these:









Actually, I'm not sure I buy the basic theory. It seems the round wire would always concentrate the wear at one point (the top point of the wire's circular cross section) instead of spreading it out over the width of a flat rail-top, therefore the wear on the shoe would be deeper but not as wide, wearing through the shoe *faster*. 

On the other hand, the top of the wire might wedge aside and flake off insulating dust and crud, causing better electrical contact. That was the theory behind Arnold's (now Hornby's) round-topped "self-cleaning" N-scale railroad rails, anyway.









I suspect any reduction in shoe wear on a wire-railed routed track occurs because there isn't a sharp new rail-end every nine inches hitting endwise to gouge the shoes, so a square-topped rail would be as good as a round one (or better), as long as the lengths of the rail sections were the same.

But only testing will tell for sure.

-- D


----------



## SwamperGene

D hits on some interesting points. I'd tend to agree that on plastic "set" track shoe wear comes more from rough joints than the flat rail assuming the shoes and spring tension are set up right to begin with. I've had cars go tens of thousands of laps between shoe changes without issue on Tomy and Tyco track.

The bigger problem is that round wire is more finicky because it is seriously "electrically challenged" for the purposes of slot racing. First off, the actual working width is a fraction of say a .014 wide flat rail, my guess would be at least 90% less. But bigger problems are involved. No matter how smooth it feels or appears, all steel wire is full of microscopic pits. 










On a flat rail this is not too big of an issue as the good spots are spread throughout the width. On a rounded rail, power flow is continuously interrupted which will cause invisible arcing to occur causing the pits to grow larger over time. To me replacing some shoes once in a while would outweigh the thought of throw-away routed tracks. 

On a side note, as a replacement consideration most "stitching wire" has slightly rounded edges to reduce the chances of it binding in a machine. :thumbsup:

_On another side note.....1000 posts!_ :woohoo:


----------



## NTxSlotCars

Congrats Pete! :thumbsup:


----------



## Dslot

.
Gene sez:


> _No matter how smooth it feels or appears, all steel wire is full of microscopic pits._


Man, those are photomicrographs of _very_ high-quality wire. What kind of manufacturing precision must it take to get even the pitting pattern to repeat with perfect consistency? I'm in awe.

Congratulations on becoming a kiloposter, Gene.:wave:

-- D


----------



## Dslot

I said:


> Back around 1970, Bachmann's slot track used HO model railroad rail for the power strips. ... I think the rail was brass, so maybe the lack of grip for magnet cars doomed it.


.
I was wrong on the second point, and maybe the first. 
This catalog entry (from Slotcar Monsters' tres groovy "Slotcar Library")










shows that (by 1972 anyway) Bachmann track had nickel-silver, not brass, rails. The illustration shows the rails as having a similar shape to inverted railroad rail, but slightly fatter and rounder. Bachmann may have created a rail piece specifically for slot track, or the artist may just have taken some liberties with the proportions of the rail cross-section to make it look more exclusive and special.

If you just "gots ta know," a mere *$12* will reveal all mysteries about Bachmann wide-rail track. (If it were six, I might get a pack myself).

-- D


----------



## Grandcheapskate

If I remember my basic physics from high school, I believe the equation is pressure=force/area or force=pressure/area.

In either case, as the area decreases, the pressure and/or force increases. So, if you reduce the surface area of the rail, such as using a round top wire, the force/pressure on the pickup shoe increases and should lead to increased shoe wear.

As the surface contact area of the rail increases, the force/pressure decreases. This could cause problem with getting electrical contact between the shoes and rail. A flat surface (shoes) against a flat surface (rails) results in less pressure. This is probably why you need to use braided pickups when using either copper tape and/or flush braid.

Joe


----------



## Dslot

But as usual, the basic equations don't tell the whole story. 

What actually causes the shoe to lose metal? It's easy to imagine it's all the sliding friction of moving forward over the rail surface. But different parts of the shoe are constantly moving left and right across the rail edges as the car wobbles from side to side or rotates out on the curves. Perhaps the constant small movements across the sharp steel rail edge scrapes off more shoe-metal than the smooth surface of the rail top wears down. 

Or does flying free and hitting a new piece of steel at each rail joint, cause most of the wear? Or is it the arcing that burns away shoe metal every time any point of the shoe loses or regains electrical contact because of gaps, dirt, shoe-flutter, or pits in the rail?

If it's the rail-edges, operating like a file-tooth that actually cause most of the wear, then the round wire would extend shoe life, regardless of the fact that it exerts more pressure than the flat rail. Or if the shoe almost never actually rides on the flat top of the rail, but is always a bit canted to one side or other, then the sharp edge of the square rail might even exert more pressure than a round wire in a rounded groove in the shoe. 

And the railtop may be flat, but after the first few laps the shoes never are, so it may be that the angled surface of the groove is always riding on the rail edge, and the shoe rarely contacts the flat railtop at any point. Once again, the round wire (or round-topped rail) is looking better and better. 










So maybe there _*is*_ a market for the rail-rounding tool after all. Who's willing to build one, and round off one rail of a test-track lane, then run a fresh set of shoes enough laps to see which side wears faster?

-- D


----------



## SwamperGene

It'd be an interesting test for sure, but a tool to do it would be a pretty tall order. While the illustration (great stuff btw) looks like it'd be easy, we're talking rounding a wire that's on average .014-.015 wide, and especially in set track very inconsistent (not straight even _on_ a straight). Maybe some sort of laser-cut stone? The other problem that comes up is how would it handle any corners, let alone a varying radii?

It might be easier to find someone who has or has access to both a round-rail track and a flat-rail track. Even then for a "proper" test, all variables would need to be the same...weight of the car, magnetic downforce, ride height, spring tension, power, speed, for that matter even the layout would need to be identical to factor in shoe angle across various curves. 

:freak:


----------



## slotcarman12078

Here's a question for you routed track continuous rail types. How fast do your shoes wear out? 

I believe the highest level of shoe wear comes from uneven track joints, not on a step down but on a step up. A simple enough test to run is setting a track with all the joints favoring one direction of travel, run a certain number of laps and check for wear, the running in the opposite direction with the same car (with new shoes so you have a legit test) and comparing the wear between the two sets. 

Improperly set shoe height/spring tension may also factor into the equation, as well as arcing due to poor contact, but my gut says it's the steps at the joints doing the most damage.


----------



## Grandcheapskate

D - great illustrations.

But...and there's always a but...you didn't illustrate the condition which would be created by initial post. If the rail of HO track was something along the lines of that found on 1/43rd track, then the rail would be wider than the pickup shoe. Therefore, there would be no "edge" on a flat-top rail.

So, given rail that is wider than the pickup shoe, and assuming that the car cannot move laterally side-to-side enough to have the pickup shoe leave the top of the rail, you cannot wear a groove in the center of a pickup shoe. The shoe would either wear evenly, or if the shoe is slanted, wear more on one side. However, because (if the shoe is straight) there is more contact area between the shoe and rail top, the downward pressure exerted by the pickup shoes on the rail, all things being equal, would decrease.

So we are actually discussing two different subjects. One is whether round thin rail has advantages over flat thin rail. The other is whether a wide rail would cause less wear (which I believe to be true).

One other point. You mention that round rail would eliminate the wear caused by rail joints. I don't see how round rail would make this any better than flat rail. The problem with rail joints is you have a gap between rails and the rails may not be the same height.

And add in one more factor in shoe wear. The wear and tear caused by the Z bend in Tomy track and the 90 degree bend in Mattel track. Having rail which is not 0 degrees to your line of travel (like the cross lanes in an intersection) has to cause some wear and tear.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Dslot

SwamperGene said:


> ... a tool to do it would be a pretty tall order. ... we're talking rounding a wire that's on average .014-.015 wide, and especially in set track very inconsistent (not straight even _on_ a straight). Maybe some sort of laser-cut stone?


Awww, I don't know, Gene; it doesn't seem too hard. 

Lessee, first you get six 9"R 90s and a couple of straights and make a figure-8. Then get your Mom's rolling pin from the back of the drawer, and roll all the rails down to the bottom of their grooves, so they're pretty close to the same height. Then you get your Dad's old dial caliper and measure rail width. 

Find yourself a Dremel abrasive cutting disk that's rail-width or a bit thicker. After using it to cut a half-inch-long chunk out of a scissor-blade, lightly stone the disk-edge to a round contour while it's running. Check the contour against a backlight with a magnifier. Now, holding very steady, use the rounded disk to put a shallow nick in the hardened-cutting edge of the scissors blade piece. Fine-stone the burrs away. Epoxy the proper spacers to the bottom, and you've got yourself a rail rounder.

Just drag it along the rail until it bottoms out everywhere. 



> The other problem that comes up is how would it handle any corners, let alone a varying radii?


Curves? No prob; the rounder tool hardly has any thickness at all, so a curve is the same as a straight to it.



> It might be easier to find someone who has or has access to both a round-rail track and a flat-rail track. Even then for a "proper" test, all variables would need to be the same...weight of the car, magnetic downforce, ride height, spring tension, power, speed, for that matter even the layout would need to be identical to factor in shoe angle across various curves.


Nah. The rounded rail is on the outside for half the fig-8 circuit and the inside for the other half (Negligible difference in radius for centrifugal effects). Car weight, downforce, etc. are automatically the same. Just set the car (with new, adjusted shoes) down and use an old "wheel" controller to hold it at, say, 75% of spinout speed, and head for bed. Get up in the morning and see which shoe has more wear. Toss the 9R90 curves, like you've been meaning to do anyway, and write up the results for Hobby Talk.

Hey, I'd do it, but that would mean I'd have to get out of my recliner.:wave:

-- D


----------



## Dslot

Grandcheapskate said:


> But ...you didn't illustrate the condition which would be created by initial post. If the rail of HO track was something along the lines of that found on 1/43rd track, then the rail would be wider than the pickup shoe. Therefore, there would be no "edge" on a flat-top rail.


True. Sorry Joe, I got shunted off onto the thin-round vs. thin-square rail issue. It's interesting because when I first thought about it it seemed reasonable that the round rail was better. Then I analyzed it based on the ideal model - flat shoe moving along the rail, and decided the square would cause less wear. Then I realized the ideal model was irrelevant, and that lateral movement and variations in shoe shape and angle made the round the likely winner, or at least a tossup until testing showed us which was right.



> ... So we are actually discussing two different subjects. One is whether round thin rail has advantages over flat thin rail.


This is the one I've been addressing.


> The other is whether a wide rail would cause less wear (which I believe to be true).


 That one will have to wait until tomorrow. Too late tonight.



> One other point. You mention that round rail would eliminate the wear caused by rail joints.


No, I didn't mean to say that at all. I meant to say that hitting the rail joints (on round _or_ square) might well cause more wear than the running. Therefore, if you compare the effect of a round-wire routed track to a square wire sectional, the greater wear from the sectional may just be from the joints, and not from the difference in rail shape. Sorry if that wasn't clear.



> I don't see how round rail would make this any better than flat rail.


 Agreed. The difference probably would be none or negligible.



> And add in one more factor in shoe wear. The wear and tear caused by the Z bend in Tomy track and the 90 degree bend in Mattel track. Having rail which is not 0 degrees to your line of travel (like the cross lanes in an intersection) has to cause some wear and tear.


Also agreed. My point was that the joints could be a major cause of wear, outweighing the rail profile. If that's correct, it would be true whether the shoe is hitting the end of the rail (Aurora/Atlas) or the off-angle part (Tyco/Tomy). Either way, the frequent sudden impacts might be gouging more metal than the continuous smooth wear of the railtops.

Cheers,
-- D


----------



## Grandcheapskate

Dslot said:


> Also agreed. My point was that the joints could be a major cause of wear, outweighing the rail profile. If that's correct, it would be true whether the shoe is hitting the end of the rail (Aurora/Atlas) or the off-angle part (Tyco/Tomy). Either way, the frequent sudden impacts might be gouging more metal than the continuous smooth wear of the railtops.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- D


And I agree here. So the only way to perform the THIN round rail vs. THIN flat rail wear test would be on a continuous rail track. On sectional track, the variable of track joints should make any test results invalid.

I look forward to when you tackle the wide flat rail issue.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## NTxSlotCars

Problem solved. Randy (Hilltop Raceway) routed his own track. Besides the awesome layout, one of his innovative ideas was to use electricians fishing tape for the rails. The tape is made out of a grade of stainless steel that is still magnetic, AND, this tape has rounded edges. I got to run on his track last year, and I can tell you, the electrical contact is great, and the rails are smooth as silk. Maybe this could be a solution to replace rail in sectional track?


----------



## Dslot

> Joe sez: I look forward to when you tackle the wide flat rail issue. Thanks...Joe


Aaargh!! The pressure!

As long as we're just speculating about untried stuff, I can do it with the best of 'em. But once we get to applying long-used methods to other scales, there's fifty years' useful experience to guide us in answering the questions. Flat power strips have been used in the larger scales so long that there's no need to speculate about much of anything - someone knows the answers. And it ain't me, babe, because I have zero experience with larger scales.

Wide power strips sound like a good idea from a performance standpoint, but I can imagine some possible problems with them. 

The first thing that strikes me is that existing HO cars have solid shoes. 1:32 and 1:24 cars have low-pressure braid pickups (or used to). Do they still? Do 1:43 cars have braid? While flat rail might reduce wear on HO pickups, HO pickups might tend to cut grooves in the thin power strips. I'd rather rather replace car-shoes than pull and replace a section of track. But I feel silly speculating, because somewhere there's somebody (a lot of somebodies, actually) who actually knows the answer to this, from experience.

Would the flat power strips really increase pickup reliability with HO shoes? Possibly not. On a thin rail, dust and gunk get wedged off the rail as the shoe moves (similar to the Arnold track mentioned above). With a flat shoe sliding on another flat surface, there's no place for particles to go but under the shoe. Unlike braid, solid flat shoes move as a unit. Track gunk buildup, or one bit of grit, could lift a shoe enough to break contact everywhere. With braid there's always another bump of weave-pattern or dangly wire bit to touch somewhere else. Possibly replacement shoes on existing HO cars, using braid or a rounded bump at the bottom might cure the problem, but then you're changing shoes every time you leave your power-strip track to race on a friend's traditional track, and back again.

It's possible that the extra surface area would increase friction enough that lap times would suffer. No problem for a patzer like me, but some folks (probably _most_ folks on this board) really care. Of course, the upside is that it would give one more variable (shoe shape) to tinker with for best lap times, and the HO speed shops could provide all sorts of exotic single-bump and multi-bump, v-shaped, and triple-braided super-shoes for $16 a pair.

And the HO cars being so light and having such a small patch of contact rubber, the difference between the track texture and the relatively large area of slick metal might make handling squirrely. 

Plus it would have two bright, shiny strips on each lane, so it would look less like real track.










Sorry, Joe, that's about the best I can do. 

-- D


----------



## slotcarman12078

Jeez, that looks awful!! There's another problem D, especially with the wider wide rails. The majority of HO cars use guide pins. Sliding through the curves will most likely cause a short circuit!! The only cars I would consider safe on a set up like that would be old TYCO Pros with the swivel guide flag with braid.


----------



## vaBcHRog

I personally believe the pwer source has more to do with pickup wear that anything else. Battery powery is the best and has the least pickup wear, a good filtered power supply is next. Walwarts are the worst for pick up wear.

Roger Corrie


----------



## Dslot

slotcarman12078 said:


> Jeez, that looks awful!! There's another problem D, especially with the wider wide rails. The majority of HO cars use guide pins. Sliding through the curves will most likely cause a short circuit!!


The alarming left pic is traditional large-scale next-to-the-slot placement, which has to extend far enough out to reach the far edge of the pickup shoes so it covers a lot of acreage. But Joe has already said he wasn't talking about that placement.

The right pic shows the minimum size for flat power strips, just wider than an Aurora pickup shoe. Joe _did_ specify "wider than the shoe". I chose Aurora size because I was familiar with 'em, but I think other makes have wider shoes, so the power strips might have to be increased somewhat. I don't think there's any chance of shorts with that system. 

It's still a fair amount of slippery metal, and it's right out near the wheels, so it wouldn't take much fishtail to put one tire on it. I'd guess the effect on handling wouldn't be too noticeable (like we don't notice going over the raised rail on conventional track).



> The only cars I would consider safe on a set up like that would be old TYCO Pros with the swivel guide flag with braid.


I remember those. I still have one (the Iso). Seems like mine had rounded tabs of phosphor bronze instead of braid, tho. Kind of a neat adaptation of the big-scale flag/pickup. Too clunky for HO, apparently, because Tyco dropped the idea and no major player has picked it up since.

-- D


----------



## SwamperGene

vaBcHRog said:


> I personally believe the pwer source has more to do with pickup wear that anything else. Battery powery is the best and has the least pickup wear, a good filtered power supply is next. Walwarts are the worst for pick up wear.
> 
> Roger Corrie


I would tend to agree with this, and as said before the rail joint conditions.


----------



## Grandcheapskate

Dslot said:


> Aaargh!! The pressure!


When the going gets tough.....




> Sorry, Joe, that's about the best I can do.
> 
> -- D


You done good!

As you mention in the previous post, I am not talking about making HO track rails EXACTLY like 1/43rd, but rather using the 1/43rd method. By this I mean the following...

As we have speculated, maybe the greatest source of pickup shoe wear, track noise and car "bounce" comes from the rail joints; although the uneveness of the plastic road surface can also come into play - more on this later. The rail height on HO plastic track can vary, even within the same piece. This leads to a rough transition when going from piece to piece.

With 1/43rd style track, it seems the rail can be installed at a more consistant height (laid right on top of the track surface). And it may be that the electrical connection method is better than anything ever available in HO, except perhaps for what I have seen of old Atlas track (which used clips to connect the rails). Having not put together a 1/43rd track, I cannot say this for sure, but it appears to be a better system.

So would using a 1/43rd style design with a rail wider than a pickup shoe (yet not as wide as 1/43rd) be better? D makes a good point about flat-on-flat, which I have heard before.

I mentioned the uneveness of the road surface. I notice on my Tyco/Mattel track that there is often a height difference on the track surface in the area between the rails. Now, one might say that this should not make a difference since the tires do not use this area and the shoes are riding on top of the rails. But I suggest that the shoes are not always riding straight on the rails and may be leaning either right or left. This would cause them to dip below the rails on one side and therefore be suseptible to hitting any raised area at the track surface joint. This would be another reason to have rails as wide as the shoes - to prevent them from leaning left or right.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## NTxSlotCars

How about the ol' stainless steel track?


















:thumbsup:


----------



## Dslot

> _*Montoya* asks: _Would you also get more magnetic attraction?


I did some rough calculations that make me think: 
======= = *Yes* = =======
.............and, substantially...............

Magnetic attraction is in proportion to the _square_ of the distance separating the objects' centers of mass. Doubling the distance, cuts the attraction to a fourth of what it was. Halving the distance, quadruples it. Small changes in distance make big differences in attraction.

Putting all the power-rail's metal on the surface instead of burying most of it below track level brings the center of mass of the rails closer to the car magnet.

I drew up a quick simulation of a magnet over identical 3mm wide rails, one set horizontally, on the track surface, the other set vertically in the track and projecting .5 mm above. The measurements roughly approximate size and position of an AFX traction magnet on Tomy track and on our imagined flatrail track. 

The magnetic force on the flat rail was about one and a half times the force on the vertical rail (1.44 actually). 

3 mm is the approximate width of the Tomy power rail and the AFX pickup shoe, so I used it for convenience. Tomy rail's a tad less and a horizontal power strip rail would be a bit wider than the shoe, so the actual result should be even greater (assuming same metal and same material thickness).

For those who want to check the math and assumptions (and I hope somebody who is more comfortable with technical math will do so), the image below has all the measurements I used.









And yes, I _have_ had too much time on my hands while laid up in the recliner.

-- D


----------



## AfxToo

_Doubling the distance, cuts the attraction to a fourth of what it was_ ... is roughly true for rectangular magnets, in terms of flux density. But the magnetic attraction is also directly proportional to the surface area of the rail that is exposed to the magnet face. In most case in HO the magnet is much wider than the rail. A wide and flat rail would expose a lot more surface area to teh magnet face, allowing many more lines of flux from the magnet to cut the rail. I think this would be a huge factor in switching from a thin Tomy style rail to a 1:32 style flat rail, unless you used a rail material with less magnetic attraction to compensate for the increased surface area.

Based on actual use I have found that standard pickup shoes last much longer on rounded rails (tie or welding wire) than flat rails. They also have considerably more magnet attraction than stock rails. 

Interesting thought experiment but I don't see anyone reinventing HO sectional track design any time soon.


----------



## Dslot

> _*NTxSlotCars* sez:_ How about the ol' stainless steel track?


Hey, Rich!!! This is _Science_ time. That there's _*ART*_.
:wave:


----------



## Dslot

Hi, *Afxtoo*. I was hoping you'd add some real technical knowledge to my scientistic guesswork. From what you say, sounds like magnetic attraction for flat rail would be up substantially more than even my simple inverse-square calculation indicates. (Assuming same material, etc.)



> Interesting thought experiment but I don't see anyone reinventing HO sectional track design any time soon.


Thought experiments are the best kind. You don't have to clean any equipment afterward. 

-- D


----------



## neorules

This discussion brings out what I feel is a very real problem we have in this hobby. The consistency that it once had has been lost. I liken its present state in racing terms to the tower of Babel. Too widespread of variables divides everyone into smaller and smaller groups of special rules and car classes. It seems ther are so many car classes and track variables, its hard for people to get together regularly and be on the same page. Changing the rail would be like each NBA team having a different height of basket. We need rules for manufacturers to have as guidelines. Also, how are the companies going to make a profit if no pu-shoes wear out? Just kidding on the last part.


----------



## SwamperGene

neorules said:


> This discussion brings out what I feel is a very real problem we have in this hobby. The consistency that it once had has been lost. I liken its present state in racing terms to the tower of Babel. Too widespread of variables divides everyone into smaller and smaller groups of special rules and car classes. It seems ther are so many car classes and track variables, its hard for people to get together regularly and be on the same page. Changing the rail would be like each NBA team having a different height of basket. We need rules for manufacturers to have as guidelines. Also, how are the companies going to make a profit if no pu-shoes wear out? Just kidding on the last part.


 
I'll second that :thumbsup:

The cars have already been designed around a specific track/rail design that had become and continues to be a defacto standard. _Any_ currently available cars and 99% of the vintage cars will run on flat .015 +/- wide rails that protrude .015 +/- from the track surface with a spacing of around 9/16". If you have a track similar to that, you can say "let's race", if you vary from the norm you say "let's race, _but_ you can't use this car or that car, etc.".


----------



## SplitPoster

This is like reading the transcript of a discussion from physics lab. And I mean that in a good way!

Not that I have much to ad, but Roger C raised a very good point - the power supply. All that sparking and arcing oxidises metal. Also, power tends to jump the arc at the smallest point. Flat rail has 90 degree edges, if there is dirt, oxidation and arcing, especially in corners or track joints, those sharp edges will act more as like a scraper and a spark plug electrode than if one has broad, more rounded contact surfaces. Sharp points and angles promote small, intense arcs. 

The other negative variable is the pickup shoes themselves. My most elderly tjets have long pickup shoes where the pivot of the shoe is as low on the chassis as it can get. When running the broad, long shoe surface is parallel to the rail, and the wear pattern on the rail - the "contact patch" if you will - is 8 mm long. If tires are shortened or come off the shoe can even be "de-cambered" - the back of the shoe contacts while the front does not. 


Contrast the Tyco and Tomy chassis I have to compare to. The pivot on the Tyco shoe is well up in the body, the shoes will always run on the "tip", and the more they wear the further from horizonal the angle will be, accelerating further wear. The contact patch is 2 mm. High power and downforce would accelerate this, wouldn't it? The SRT and Indycar chassis have lower pickup points, but still are still short shoes. The SRT chassis does not wear all the way to the back of the shoe - contact patch of about 5 mm, while the formula car chassis does with a contact patch of about 6 mm - I would expect the latter to last longer. Both, however, still concentrate wear to the front of the shoe. Both are much thinner metal - easier to wear and deform - more power with less metal and surface to dissipate energy - plus high downforce and friction. Somethings going to wear, and it's better that it's the shoes than the track rail, financially speaking. (BTW, anybody wear out track rail?) 

High performance means increased wear. Magnets and high power - Kinda like soft tires in 1:1 racing, they stick better but wear out way quicker, and stress the rest of the car much, much more because they do their job so well.

I would think that rounded rail profiles with attention to track joints could only decrease wear. Rail width could easily be doubled if not tripled with no practical effect on the track or the car - Tomy rail is tiny. Would any "mainstream" (if there is one) manufacturer do that, even consider it?


----------



## Grandcheapskate

Great discussion so far.

Rich,
The stainless steel track may well be the ultimate racing surface. The one problem with such a track would be the complete absence of magnetic attraction. As I have pointed out in numerous other posts, there are many stock chassis which depend upon magnetic attraction to pull the front wheels down to the track surface. If you aren't using magnetic cars, it's not an issue. However, if you do, then you'd have to find a metal that supplies approximatly the same downforce as standard rail; and remember, there'll be a lot more surface area exposed to the magnets, although the distance between magnets and track surface will be greater since the "rails" are not raised. Would the increased seperation distance cancel out the larger area exposed to the magnets? It would be interesting to test.

The other issue with using a different metal would be rust. Can you get a metal which will attract magnets yet not rust?

Now, on to other things... 

I can easily see how a wider flat rail would increase magnetic attraction, assuming it was made of the same material, and sat the same distance from the magnets, as current rail. However, as I pointed out above, if you used a wide flat rail you could have it installed lower than standard rail, possibly even flush with the track surface; this would probably simulate stainless steel track. Increasing the distance between rail and magnets, and then increasing the surface area exposed to the magnets, could probably be calculated to produce the same effect as standard rail.

I understand Neo's concerns as we have spoken many times on the phone. This is more a thought experiment, as AFXTOO points out, than a practical thing to do. However, if you simply run your cars alone, or do not plan to be part of a racing group, there may be many track experiments you can do to improve your basement racing experiance.

My initial point was that I believe a 1/43rd style design would be better than thin rail (whether flat or round), both in terms of shoe wear, rail smoothness and electrical continuity. The stainless steel track is an excellent example of how such a system would perform with non magnetic cars.

Magnet cars would be a seperate issue that would need to be addressed either by using a non-magnet surface and adding weight to the front of the car, or finding the sweet spot between increased rail surface and increased magnet seperation.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## SwamperGene

I'm gonna follow AFXToo's lead and throw in a little bit from experience. 

I've had shoes on various chassis last for tens of thousands of laps with no performance decrease and little or no visible wear. 

Come to think of it, some racers like a "grooved in" shoe as it offers a larger and more stable contact patch. 

Doubling the rail's surface area has a very significant effect on cars with traction magnets, tripling it would create an outright hazard for novice racers using "legacy" cars.

As tracks get run on and cleaned (assuming a light abrasive), the "square" rail edges are naturally being rounded.

I just don't see the point, I guess, more specifically I'm not seeing any problems with what we have now :freak:


----------



## shocker36

If its not broke then dont fix it:thumbsup:


----------



## slotnewbie69

i would rather see wider track then different rails.to allow for drift.or just old fasioned snap on turn borders.


----------



## Dslot

> *neorules* - ... Too widespread of variables divides everyone into smaller and smaller groups ... We need rules for manufacturers to have as guidelines.
> 
> *Gene -* ... a specific track/rail design ... continues to be a defacto standard. ... if you vary from the norm you say "let's race, but you can't use this car or that car, etc."


True enough.

But this thread isn't a conspiracy to replace existing HO track with a new, incompatible standard; it's speculation on Joe's question of why HO took a different route from the other scales, what the costs/benefits might be to wider rails, and how existing track might be improved - with useful detours about rail profile and shoe wear. 

While I was feeling under the weather for several days, doing thought experiments about track design and drawing pictures was more fun than flipping through TV channels. Maybe it's using a 12-gauge to swat flies, but it was fun. And as I hoped, it sparked and continues to generate a good amount of experience-based useful info.

- D


----------



## Grandcheapskate

SwamperGene said:


> Doubling the rail's surface area has a very significant effect on cars with traction magnets, tripling it would create an outright hazard for novice racers using "legacy" cars.


Just a note...in some sets, Mattel included 9"1/4 and 12" 1/8 curves with double rails. The intent, obviously, was to create more downforce on the curves, especially on those sets with vertical "wall climbers". I have not used any of them, but they are out there.

Joe


----------



## AfxToo

> This discussion brings out what I feel is a very real problem we have in this hobby. The consistency that it once had has been lost .....


Neo, what you bring up is actually the largest symptom of the primary problem that plagues the HO racing sport today. And I intentionally said _symptom of the problem_ rather than the _cause of the problem_. The root cause goes much deeper and is not unique to the sport.

To understand the cause you need to understand and recognize that there are multiple competing interests at stake. On the one hand you have the "end consumers" who want nothing more than to be able to pick and choose products based on personal preference or whatever they perceive to be the "best of breed" offerings available to choose from. On the other hand you have the manufacturers, and by that I mean anyone making products to sell to "end customers" either directly or through a sales and distribution channel. 

So where's the problem? Recall that I mentioned "best of breed." Therein lies the root cause of the problem! Who decides the "breed?" With no regulations, standards, or governance in place - it's a free for all. So who gets to decide the breeds when there are no standards? In a free market with a level playing field the market decides. In Darwinian fashion you would expect that the market would cull the weak and reinforce the strong. At some point the strong becomes a "defacto" standard, which means that it becomes so popular that others follow its lead even though there are no formal standards or requirements to do so. 

When you look at the HO sport/hobby the survival of the fittest has prevailed to some degree, and at some level, but the outcome is still in play or at least some manufacturers would like you to think that it is. As long as manufacturers see an opportunity and with no requirements being imposed by end users, the fight for survival will continue. Every remaining manufacturer will try to exert their influence over determining the outcome. Manufacturers have a few product market driven strategies to employ in their quest for survival and superiority like: Best of Breed, New Breed, Lowest Cost, Complementary, etc. They also have non product market driven strategies like politics, FUD, unholy alliances between manufacturers and user groups, and underhandedness. We've seen them all used at one time or another. 

One of the biggest weapons in the manufacturer's arsenal is "new breed" strategy because it tries to force a strong differentiation. Rather than trying to compete head to head to achieve "best of breed" they attempt to define a new breed. Things like fundamentally changing the magnetic characteristics of a car, specifying new operating voltages, specifying new armature resistances, radically new chassis layouts, new levels of body realism, new lane spacing, new track materials, new rail configurations, etc., are all "new breed" strategies. While best of breed can be highly subjective, new breed is usually not because a Type X car/track is not a Type Y car/track. 

Don't take me wrong, I have nothing at all against manufacturers. They are the lifeblood of the hobby and sport. We need them as much as they need us. But don't be so naive as to forget or fail to respect the fundamental differences between producers and the consumers and the fundamental differences in each side's priorities. We can't stop them from trying to win the competitive battles they are engaged in using whatever means they believe are valid. As consumers, if we expect to see uniformity, consistency, and adherence to standards we need to exert our influence and reward those manufacturers who are best meeting our needs. There is no reason the relationship needs to be contentious, it can and should be mutually beneficial. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but the almighty dollar trumps all.


----------



## NTxSlotCars

Too,
I think you are spot on about all this. Tomy/AFX has remained strong in three ways. The SuperG+ chassis has long been popular as an entry chassis and a serious racing chassis. RaceMasters has made recent improvements in the body department, but how the MegaG plays out is yet to be seen. The variety of track pieces has made Tomy a popular choice for home layouts. And, the extensive layout availability has made it a good value for home track makers, even though they may have lost some retail outlets in the process. Wow, no wonder Tomy/AFX is still strong. I think AW made a good move to utilize Tomy track.
As strong as Tyco WAS, it's hard to believe where they are now. I think it's safe to say all hope has been lost for Tyco with its current parent company.
LifeLike has ridden the popularity of Nascar, which hasn't been a bad move. They have produced almost as many paint schemes as actual Nascar teams have. This has been a nightmare for the collector, but good for the average customer. The track is a different story, not good for anything more than a very rough, mediocre two lane layout. Among LifeLike loyalist, the replacement of the "M" chassis has been a sore subject. But, since Tomy is replacing the SuperG+ with the MegaG, this just hasn't seemed like big news anymore.

Now, there's rumor of Marchon making a comeback. I never really liked their chassis and bodies, but I do like their track. I think the "new breed" rule applies here. Lot's of potential. If Marchon decides to use the same track design, and adds a few more radiuseses, I will be building a Marchon layout. The rail connections are similar to Tomy, but the actual track connections are way better, and the lane spacing is the same as Tyco. Marchon track was straight with a consistent rail height. I hope they are able to continue the same standards.


----------



## SwamperGene

Grandcheapskate said:


> Just a note...in some sets, Mattel included 9"1/4 and 12" 1/8 curves with double rails. The intent, obviously, was to create more downforce on the curves, especially on those sets with vertical "wall climbers". I have not used any of them, but they are out there.
> 
> Joe


I know them well, my first 4-laner as an adult was a Tyco layout made of a bunch of yard sale and flea market finds. I kept wondering why cars were slowing down in some corners til I noticed the double rails in a few of the curves.

:freak:

It is inline with what I said though, there is very noticable drag on a stock x2 on double rails.


----------



## Grandcheapskate

I do not think you will ever get a "standard" in terms of cars. There's just no way to force a T-Jet on a magnet racer or a magnet car on a T-Jet racer. So there are many types of chassis, which I believe to be a good thing. If different chassis require different voltages, so be it. The bottom line is that you want all of them to be able to run on a "standard track".

And what is a "standard track"? There have been a couple default standards established.

The rail seperation has become a standard; except for Matchbox, I believe all other track brands use the same rail spacing.

Guide slot width is 1/16". Some routed tracks may use 1/8", but 1/16th seems to be the standard.

Rail height is still a variable within a certain range, although with loose tolerances on plastic track, even if there were a standard, you'd have variations.

Most tracks, including routed tracks, use even lane spacing. Only Tomy (as a carryover from Aurora) uses uneven lane spacing.

Whether using 1.5" or 1.75" as your lane spacing, all HO cars can run on either, so this is a matter of personal preference. There are no setup changes necessary on your cars for this variable.

What's not a standard is the actual rails, both in material and size, and track surface. If you were to try to come to a general agreement on rail characteristics, you'd have a Tower of Babel. What are the BEST characteristics of rail? There would be people with different and valid opinions, so much so that I believe you could not come up with one definitive answer. Should the answer be the most popular, yet maybe not the best?

And what is the racing surface to be made from?

This thread has mostly been about rails; the size, shape, material, etc. And it's been almost completely about the shape of metal rails, not even discussing braid. Rich also touched on the stainless steel track.

Because HO slots have been around about 50 years, 35 or more without the interaction of the internet, isolated groups have developed the rules that work for them. It simply needs to be accepted that we are all different and get our enjoyment from running our toy cars the way we ENJOY running them. No one wants to be told how to have fun.

We want manufacturers to be innovative. If you were to stop all development today and pick a chassis that everyone had to make, would you want that? What if it wasn't the chassis you like?

For you guys that get into racing seriously, these questions need to be debated and settled amongst yourselves. In fact, I'll wager that if you were to have a serious discussion to determine the BEST track characteristics, if you wanted to make a universal standard and not bring any prejudice to the table, the result would be something that does not exist today. So the question becomes - would you create a new track design in order to get a universal, cross-organizational standard? 

For those who just want to have fun and play in the basement, choice is good. As long as all the cars can run on any track, which is pretty much the case today, I think we are as close as we are going to get to a universally accepted standard.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## NTxSlotCars

So,....... what was your question?


----------



## Dslot

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" has a lot of wisdom in day-to-day life. However, if you take it too literally, you end up denying progress and improvement.

My '67 Mustang wasn't broke in any way - it was a great car, fun to drive, rugged and reliable, good-looking. But I sure do like my Taurus' cupholders. 

And its electronic ignition. And... well, you can write the rest of the list as well as I can.

-- D


----------



## SwamperGene

D I don't think it's a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", I think it's just the voices of experience saying that the idea of a flat, wide steel rail would not be practical in a hobby that is so entrenched in legacy paraphernalia. The AW Super III is a very good example, many people got past the tuning issues but still hated it simply because you couldn't put another body on it. And we need to look no further than the "Big 3" HO manufacturers to see how progress and improvements can splinter the hobby in a nanosecond.

That said, discussing the pros and cons of any idea is always a good thing 

They could include a perpetual wet bar and a cheap date with the Taurus, I'd still take the Mustang any day.


----------



## Grandcheapskate

Yeah, this is an old thread, but it kinda goes back to using a wide rail...

As it starts to warm up here in the northeast, thoughts return to getting the opportunity to rout outside again. So I was thinking...

When I read though all the posts and websites about routing an HO track with rail, there seem to be two major areas of rail work - getting the rail locked in the rail slot (via a lock wire) and getting the rail height to be consistant. What I never read mentioned is using a "L" or "T" shaped rail.

I know one of the track manufacturers uses an "L" shaped rail, with the lower part of the "L" under the track surface so it cannot be pulled up. But that is not what I am thinking about.

So let's assume you can get (or make) "L" shaped rail.

For one, what if you installed the rail with the lower part of the "L" ON the track surface (in other words, upside down - actually downside up)? This would mean there is no problem with rail height as it would be consistant; it would be as high as the thickness of the rail. You could then either lock it into place with lock wire or glue it down. The lower part of the "L (on the track surface) does not even need to be very long, just long enough so it can't fall into the rail slot.

Number two. What if you installed two "L" shaped rails back to back, thereby creating a "T" shaped rail, with the top of the "T" on the track surface? Maybe with two rails in the rail slot, you wouldn't need a lock wire.

Either option gives you consistant rail height without having to worry about how deep you've made the rail slot. It also gives you a wider rail on the track surface, although how wide depends upon how long you've made the lower part of the "L".

The two big questions would be (1) can you buy and/or bend straight rail into an "L" shape and (2) would it be hard to bend this rail around curves?

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Slott V

I tend to think a rail with an angle iron shape would be difficult to make follow a curve in its finished form, that being a straight extrusion. Being in manufacturing myself, I tend to think without heat involved to help the metal bend to another shape you would end up with kinks and/or curls in the flat surface, depending on which way you bend it. Modern manufacturing does have the ability to produce arc shaped steel I beams for architecture so it's possible to do this on a smaller scale. Rail is made from bar stock and flattened into the precise final shape using numerous reducing rollers. The L shaped rail would have to be rolled that way from the start of manufacturing it.


----------



## Slott V

*curved angle iron*

Hot formed angle iron:
http://www.jorgensonrolling.com/structuralshaperolling.html

Cold formed:
http://www.hossfeldbender.com/tooling/bar-angle-iron.php

In theory you would have to fabricate a miniature version of the cold former tool to control the flatness of the top surface being curved.


----------



## pshoe64

I built a routed track for a friend years ago that used magnetic 1/8" wide braid for the conductor. It was HO scale, 1/16" slot and the braid was spaced .010 on either side of the slot and recessed evenly to the track surface. The braid came from Royce Industries in Texas. Not sure if they are still around, I built this in the late 80s. The conductor was excellent, but stock pick ups were fussy unless it was some form of magnet car. AFX Magnatractions being the least magnet car that would run without alterations. T-jets and similar non-mag cars required a wiper or braid to maintain electrical connection to the braided track. It was incredibly quiet, smooth and fast. It also took forever to build (4 months, track and wiring only) and the braid would require re-gluing/re-seating every few months. About the same as seen on a commercial large scale track. 

If I ever decide to build another routed track, I think I would go with some form of rounded rail as discussed earlier in this thread. Being circular, it should conform easily to curves and banking, than the "standard" rail. My concern is how to secure it to the track surface for the least maintenance/repair possible.

Good thread, good thoughts here. You guys are making me eye my router sitting on the workbench....:freak:

-Paul


----------



## Grandcheapskate

Slott V said:


> I tend to think a rail with an angle iron shape would be difficult to make follow a curve in its finished form, that being a straight extrusion. Being in manufacturing myself, I tend to think without heat involved to help the metal bend to another shape you would end up with kinks and/or curls in the flat surface, depending on which way you bend it. Modern manufacturing does have the ability to produce arc shaped steel I beams for architecture so it's possible to do this on a smaller scale. Rail is made from bar stock and flattened into the precise final shape using numerous reducing rollers. The L shaped rail would have to be rolled that way from the start of manufacturing it.


Having no experiance in this field, I would not argue the point you're making. 

Bending straight rail is currently not a problem. The problem occurs when you start to increase the surface area, such as creating an "L" shaped rail. But if the surface area were kept small (the bottom of the "L" very short), wouldn't you still be able to bend the rail without too much difficulty? Certainly as the surface area (bottom of the "L") increases, bending becomes more and more a problem, to the point where you would probably have to heat it in order to bend it.

If you were to install an "L' shaped rail back to back creating a "T", the bottom of the "L" could be real short since the combined distance across the "T" would only need to be a hair over 1/16" (assuming a 1/16" rail slot), meaning the bottom of the "L" on each piece would only need to be about 1/32". Could you bend such a rail without problem?

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Grandcheapskate

pshoe64 said:


> I built a routed track for a friend years ago that used magnetic 1/8" wide braid for the conductor. It was HO scale, 1/16" slot and the braid was spaced .010 on either side of the slot and recessed evenly to the track surface.
> 
> -Paul


Hi Paul,
My preference is to go with braid. I have tested magnetic and non-magnetic braid on a small oval. Most cars, even T-Jets, run pretty well. The braid I installed is slightly raised, which is why hard pickups may be working. Most magnet cars love it, although some HP-7s can give me fits. The magnet cars work on the non-magnet braid too, it's just that without magnetic downforce, the front wheels don't touch the track; the pickup springs are stronger than the weight of the car.

If I were to try installing rail, I can imagine the difficulty in getting the height correct. Using an "L" shaped rail would almost completely alleviate that problem.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## 1976Cordoba

Possibly the best solution is to pay a track builder to do it. Sure it's spendy but way less headaches IMHO. Might be worth it.


----------



## slotcarman12078

For making curves with L ot T track, the depth isn't what makes the bend difficult... It's the width that is the problem. I also can foresee the rail wanting to twist instead of bend.


----------



## alpink

" twisting by the pool ... everyone was twisting by the pool ... "


----------



## ggnagy

thinking "cross hobby" but the rail on N and HO flex track (for trains, not the AFX stuff) bends pretty easily and has a top and bottom surface that is wider that the straight rail we use in current track. Its even designed to perform the same function. Primary downside, as I see it, is it currently comes in 36" lengths.


----------



## Grandcheapskate

ggnagy said:


> thinking "cross hobby" but the rail on N and HO flex track (for trains, not the AFX stuff) bends pretty easily and has a top and bottom surface that is wider that the straight rail we use in current track. Its even designed to perform the same function. Primary downside, as I see it, is it currently comes in 36" lengths.


Excellent observation!!! I have seen train flex track, only I have have never seen just how tight a bend you could make with it. I doubt anyone uses a 6" radius curve for trains - but maybe they do. Then again, the rail ties would keep it from bending to it's minimum radius. Plus the train track is an "I" shape, which should be harder to bend than an "L" shape.

The key to having a bendable rail with a flat top surface probably lies in the bendability of the metal itself. A soft metal (like that used in the train track?) should allow you to bend it. And of course, the thinner it is, the easier it should bend. If making an "L" shaped rail, the width need not be as large as standard rail as the car will mostly see the flat top. Since the width of the metal is smaller, it should bend easier.

If we assume the rail height should be between .010-.015, then we only need metal that is .010-.015 in width - thinner than the rail currently used. And if it still needs lock wire, so be it. The point is that the flat top surface will give you consistant height without any hassles.

I would also think someone with an engineering background could probably tell us how the relationship of the lengths of the two legs of the "L" would contribute to the ease of bending the metal. After all, I am not talking about a long length on the lower leg of the "L", just enough to lie on the surface of the track to give you that consistant height.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Grandcheapskate

If you have never seen this video of how a Scalextric car is made, take a look:






I'd never have thought as much of this was done by hand as is shown here.

Near the end, they show the rail being inserted into the track. It's fairly quick, but note the rail is an upside down "U" (flat surface), looks to be pre-bent, and is only press fit in place.

Possibilities for HO?

Joe


----------

