Thanks to all who responded to my query regarding dimensions of 130 lb rail.
Mike
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Chuck Johnstone
<chuck.johnstone@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
John,
Thanks for digging that up. I assumed that the Algoma rail was built to the
AREA dimensions. Your plan seems to refute that assumption. 6 15/16" scales
to 0.796 inches in HO, code 83 is starting to look like the way to go.
Chuck Johnstone
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <cpsig%40yahoogroups.com>, "John" <sutherail@...>
wrote:
was 2 27/32" and that would be approximately 3/4" below the top. It was 6"
130# RE-HF rail, when new, was 6 15/16" high. Maximum width of the head
wide at the base (the same as modern 132# and 136#).
Data from CP standard plan R-12-93-4, dated Jan 31, 1977. The 130#section was long obsolete for new purchases, so this would probably be a
straight copy from an earlier standard plan, X-10-16-61.
<mikesue.salfi@> wrote:
John
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <cpsig%40yahoogroups.com>, Michael Salfi
mainly
Can anyone let me know the physical dimensions of 130 pound rail,
in thatoverall height and width at top of rail.
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:29 PM, John <sutherail@> wrote:
Yes, that definitely means 130 pound rail. Jointed rail, of course,
fairlyera and the steel was not of the quality in today's rails. It is a
therare section now but I think you may still be able to find some on
the mainNelson Sub. Not sure, but it may have been relay rail released from
line many years back.
John
--
Mike and Sue Salfi
Kitchener, ON