Trains.com

Will g-scale code 250 track work with code 332 track

5351 views
7 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2008
  • From: New Jersey
  • 25 posts
Will g-scale code 250 track work with code 332 track
Posted by railroader21 on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 7:59 PM

I was wondering if you could mix different codes of track together such as code 250 and code 332.

Any help will be appreciated.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Chatham, Ont
  • 116 posts
Posted by DennisB on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 8:15 PM
    Code 250 is very easily bent and smaller than 332. Not really a good idea. Not really the wisest thing to try. Dennis
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: North, San Diego Co., CA
  • 3,092 posts
Posted by ttrigg on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 9:31 PM

Blending of track of different weights CAN be done. My personal recommendation would be to do it only where it makes visual sense to do so, like joining a "light weight" branch line or spur to a heavy weight mainline. An example would be when joining a trolley/street car line to your main service main line. In that case it make a visually appealing layout, especially if the light rail has significantly different tie spacing. Give a look at either Hilmann's Rail Clamps or Split Jaw Rail Clamps. I'm sure you will find what you need to do the job between the two brands, both are very reliable connectors (both reliable businesses and reliable physical and electrical connections.)

Tom Trigg

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 10:53 PM

Connecting, yes they can connect.

Good link: http://www.btcomm.com/trains/special_offers/track/track.htm

Toad

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: North, San Diego Co., CA
  • 3,092 posts
Posted by ttrigg on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 11:03 PM

One thing I forgot about is wheel flange. Some brands of cars and engines have flanges too large to smoothly operate on code 250 rail. I don't recall which brand it is, but a bit of research on this site will get you to that particular conversation. As best as I can remember, there are some wheel sets out there that have flanges so large that they will bump over the plastic "tie plates' molded onto the ties, causing a lot of derailments.

Tom Trigg

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Centennial, CO
  • 1,192 posts
Posted by kstrong on Thursday, October 2, 2008 2:18 AM
Sorry, I've got to disagree with some of the sentiments relative to code 250 track. I've been using it in one form or another for 15 years, and have never had an issue with it that wouldn't also apply to code 332 rail.

1) Yes, it is a smaller profile rail, thus likely more prone to damage when twisted the wrong way. However, when properly installed on a solid roadbed (as every track regardless of rail size should be) it will be quite sturdy. While I don't make a habit of it, I can walk on my code 250 rail without worry. Rail material also comes into play. It's plausible that code 250 brass or stainless rail would be stronger than code 332 aluminum. I've never tested that theory.

2) Flanges only cause a problem when the distance from the top of the spike detail to the railhead is smaller than the depth of the flange. Unless you're using a code 250 track with exceptionally tall spike detail, this won't be an issue. The three major code 250 track suppliers--Llagas, Sunset Valley, and AMS--all have very low-profile spike details, so there's easily .2" worth of room. The deepest flange I've ever encountered in large scale is .150", and most are under .125" (1/8")--even the "deep" Aristo flanges. I'm not discounting the possibility that somewhere, there may be the odd piece of equipment with ridiculously deep flanges, but 99.9% of what's out there now will not have an issue. When you get into the smaller codes (215, 197) then flange depth becomes more of a concern.

What you do run into with code 250 is that the flanges are more prone to hit the ballast if it's piled up above the top of the ties. But after a few go-arounds, the flanges will knock away any errant ballast, and you'll be fine. Often, I'll grab my wife's eggliner to "clear the line" so to speak before an operating session on the railroad. Its flanges push away any ballast that's splattered up next to the rails, and by the time I've got the switches cleared and the rolling stock out, it's smooth sailing all the way around.

Later,

K
  • Member since
    January 2004
  • 103 posts
Posted by Dick Friedman on Thursday, October 16, 2008 7:15 PM

Kevin is correct.  Besides, he's been around G railroading for a while, so he's probably made more mistakes and corrected them than most of us.

 Let's start by just answering the man's question.  Yes, you can use code 250 and code 332 rail with joiners as stated.

On the issue of depth, I've been using nearly every manufacturer's wheels on my Llagas Creek code 250 aluminum rail.  No problems with rail and flanges.  Have bumped some ballast out of the way, but not a problem.

Use the smaller rail whenever possible if it looks good to you.  

A lot of garden railroading is like Davey Crockett said, "Be sure you're right, and then go ahead."  But remember that "right" is in the eye of the owner of the railroad.

  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: San Francisco Bay Area
  • 1,090 posts
Posted by on30francisco on Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:57 PM

 Yes, you can use both. Split Jaw makes adapter clamps to join them together. As far as deep flanges are concerned, you shouldn't have any problems. Heck, LGB's equipment runs on code 215 from Llagas Creek with no problems.

Search the Community

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Garden Railways magazine. Please view our privacy policy