the MRH Forum

Head free rail General discussion
Reply
Super User 7,338 posts Deemiorgos Super User 7,338 posts
Deemiorgos
What does the term head free rail mean?
Reply 0
Prof_Klyzlr Moderator 7,956 posts
Prof_Klyzlr

McIllwraith Rails?

Dear Deem, Um, do you have a context or link? Waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when, there was a type of rail made in the UK which had steel head, but cast iron web and base. Over time, the metals seperated, resulting in a few nasty accidents with strips of railhead bending up, hitting the undergear and floors, and spearing thru the carriages. It was banned from most SG and Govt railways, and migrated to smaller not-so-well-off NG tramways. Such damaged rails were occasionbally referred to (and used by the NG tramways) as "headless rail. Search "McIllwraith rails", Of course, this is late 19th/early 20th century proto, can't say I've heard of anything remotely similar in model form... Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr
Reply 0
Deemiorgos Super User 7,338 posts
Deemiorgos

130lb

Prof Kylzir, Here is a link. http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=3991564&rec_nbr_list=3823503,4150218,3932892,4141648,4145732,3991564,134570,98085,4459712,200683 I came across this while searching info on 130lb rail. I noticed Head free 130lb rail made by Algoma steel in the forties. Perhaps rail made for mainlines in the US? I'm trying to find out if 130 lb rail was used in the late fifties in Canada, but it seems 100 to 115lb rail was used. Even the area I model still has mainline 100lb rail that will be replaced soon with 130lb.
Reply 0
David Husman dave1905 MRH Author 9,843 posts
David Husman dave1905

Head free

Normally in the US "head free" rail has the lower corners of the head of the rail omitted making the head of the rail more of "teardrop" or pear shaped profile.  It was intended to save material and be cheaper.

Dave Husman

Visit my website :  https://wnbranch.com/

Blog index:  Dave Husman Blog Index
Reply 0
Mike MILW199 Regular poster 287 posts
Mike MILW199

Head free rail

SP had quite a bit of this stuff.  In later years came to be known as "gauge-free" rail. 

More info here: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/154207.aspx?sort=ASC&pi332=1

 

 

Mike  former WSOR engineer  "Safety First (unless it costs money)"  http://www.wcgdrailroad.com/
Reply 0
Deemiorgos Super User 7,338 posts
Deemiorgos

So now I'm wondering if the

So now I'm wondering if the 130 lb head free rail that was made by Algoma Steel in the 1940's was made for the US only. I can't find any info confirming if 130 lb rail was used anywhere in Canada in the late 1950's. Could a CNR "Santa Fe" type 2-10-2 run on 100 lb mainline rail at high speeds?
Reply 0
David Husman dave1905 MRH Author 9,843 posts
David Husman dave1905

High speed

Define high speed.  Most 2-10-2's were drag engines but some of the later ones could do maybe 50 mph. and yes  they could go 50 mph on 100 lb rail.  Speed is more a function of curvature and superelevation than weight of rail.

Dave Husman

Visit my website :  https://wnbranch.com/

Blog index:  Dave Husman Blog Index
Reply 0
Deemiorgos Super User 7,338 posts
Deemiorgos

Dave, So they would have been

Dave, So they would have been used to haul coal and ore? I just got off the phone with my father inlaw who worked at Algoma Steel in the late 50's (never thought to ask him) and he told me that most of the mainline track in Canada was 110 lb rail though 115 lb rail and larger was used on long steeper than usual grades and through mountain terrain. I didn't know until today that Algoma produced rail for many countries including the US and places as far as New Zealand. Damn there seems to be no way for me to justify using code 83 rail.
Reply 0
gonzo Regular poster 204 posts
gonzo

When I was working with (not

When I was working with (not for) the railways it was explained to me that headless rail had less "meat" between the head and the web to save money and make the steel go farther.CN used regular rail as they owned some steel mills and CP used headless to stretch their dollar, or so I was told.           A company I deal with has some good info on rail sizes, http://harmersteel.com/
Reply 0
Prof_Klyzlr Moderator 7,956 posts
Prof_Klyzlr

Nike was onto something...

Dear Deem,

Quote:

Damn there seems to be no way for me to justify using code 83 rail.

Yes there is:

- you already have the Code 83 on hand,
- you'd rather get on with building the layout than sweating over +/-0.010"
- you recognize that once weathered, no-one's going to notice at average viewing distances
- If anyone gets in close enough to actually notice, they will be too close to notice or avoid the incoming baseball bat...

Above all, unless it is really sticking in your mind as the builder and owner,
I'd much rather get out of the armchair and build something,

as opposed to letting 0.010" stop the entire train before the fun even starts...

Just $0.05c from the outside looking in...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS reccomend going back and re-reading Ken R's "Too Much Information?" thread...

 
Reply 0
Deemiorgos Super User 7,338 posts
Deemiorgos

Good points Prof Kylzir.

Good points Prof Kylzir. Thanks; I needed that! I was joining code 70 rail to 83 on my inglenook (that I will be using to display my 74 collection) yesterday and noticed the difference is minuscule as seen here: http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/15656?page=3 It's been just over two years since I tore down my old layout. It's about time I get my steam locos out of the safety deposit box and get things rolling. Over the past two years I've experimented with different types of track on my dioramas. As much as I like the ME track, I've decided to go with code 83 for my my mainline, code 70 for my branchline and sidings off the code 83 mainlines. I'll use CVT ties for sidings on the branch line to create a lower profile look.
Reply 0
Reply