If you think that 70 looks better, and that level of good looks is what you are all about, then you have to go for it. However, good looks for me is elsewhere and I find 83 flex looks good enough. Before ballasting, they all look crude. After, I have to look to tell the difference and I never do, I notice the quality of the ballasting and the world around the track before the track itself.
The point is, however, what do you want.
Compromise: go with Peco code 75. The line is extensive (except for diamonds), the stuff is a dream to work with (much nicer than Micro Engineering), and the switches are cheaper and more durable than M-E.
I used to use code 83 until I decided to be a "rebel" and built my last layout using all Peco code 75 (with M-E code 70 diamonds and code 55 flex on stub sidings). I could tell that the track was smaller and more visually apealing in person, but seeing the difference in photos really made it stand out.
I won't go back to code 83, and DEFINITELY won't ever use code 100. It's just plain too big. And don't let people tell you that the smaller rail sizes are too "delicate" and "finicky": they're not. True, you need to be a little more careful with your roadbed to ensure a VERY smooth surface, but once laid the track is as sturdy and reliable as the larger stuff. People who don't like small rail are either sloppy with their trackwork, sloppy with their equipment, cheap, or all three.
If you REALLY want to be accurate, use M-E code 55 flextrack and Central Valley switch tie strips to create code 55 switches. They're faster than handlaying switches, more highly detailed than 99.9% of handlaid switches, and you'll end up with very accurate rail for your era.
Remember: track is a model too!
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
NevinW wrote:Theoretically I agree with you entirely about going code 55 for such a layout....Since it would take me substantially longer to hand lay code 55 and it would likely be less reliable than a larger size. The railroads that I am most ingterested in modeling are the T&T, T&G and BGRR. All were built between 1905 and 1907 and most likely use rail in the 60 to 70 pound range. I am sure there is something in Myrick's book about what size it was actually used..... - Nevin
As the others have stated, code 55 is just as reliable as as larger rail. Can it be kinked easier with careless handling? Yes. But trackwork reliability comes from the rails being accurately positioned relative to one another, and remaining that way, not from their bulk or size. Scale size spikes are available from http://www.proto87.com/.
The questions for accurate modeling of your chosen prototype are: were tie plates used? were ties hand-hewn or sawn? what kind (if any) of ballast?
As others more eloquent than I have stated, "Track is a model, too." On a small layout, it is quite feasible to have highly detailed, prototypically accurate trackwork. On a large layout, trackwork typically has to give up some detail, as do cars, locomotives, structures, and scenery due to time constraints. But often commercial turnouts turn out to be a false economy of time. See Joe Fugate's web site and threads for his comments.
my thoughts, these are your choices
Fred W
orsonroy wrote:Compromise: go with Peco code 75.
davidmbedard wrote: It would probably be cheaper to purchase a jig from Fasttracks and make your own switches. Then you will have to the most accurate, reliable cd55 switches out there! It would be much cheaper in the long run....If you want instant gratification, then you have to go 83 or 70....but ill say again, it just wont look right on 83 or 70.David B
It would probably be cheaper to purchase a jig from Fasttracks and make your own switches. Then you will have to the most accurate, reliable cd55 switches out there! It would be much cheaper in the long run....
If you want instant gratification, then you have to go 83 or 70....but ill say again, it just wont look right on 83 or 70.
David B
First, what size (weight in pounds per yard, and scale inches in height) do the various codes of rail represent?
On the other hand, any rail can be weathered to appear smaller than it is.
As for turnouts, I have hand-laid standard and narrow gauge turnouts with code 100, 83 and 70 rail. I wouldn't hesitate to build a code 55 turnout. Code 40 would be a challenge, since my usual building methods would raise issues with flange clearance. I have never used any kind of jig, only the appropriate NMRA gauge and a pair of three point gauges.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)