I'm thinking about building a small HO scale layout representing 1910 using code 55 for the main and code 40 for the siding tracks to represent earlier lighter rail. Is it worth visually using code 55 and code 40? Has anyone tried this?
kylebig4 Is it worth visually using code 55 and code 40?
I think that it would be visually different than using code 83 or 100 or w/e. The process for tracklaying is the same, regardless of the size of rail. The only potential problem that I see is that your flanges may strike the molded spikes, causing a vibrating sound or possibly derailments. But thats just my opinion. Its really all up to you.
My Model Railroad: Tri State RailMy Photos on Flickr: FlickrMy Videos on Youtube: YoutubeMy Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives
I think lighter rail is an important part of modeling an earlier era. I'm planning on modeling a narrow gauge line circa 1907 in HOn3 and will probably use Code 40 exclusively.
So yes, I think it's worth it. Code 40 and 55 are very noticeably "light" and will look much, much better. Many people will probably say larger rail can be camouflaged with some good painting and weathering and that's true, but the smaller rail still looks significantly more realistic in my opinion, especially in close-up photography.
SPVSo yes, I think it's worth it. Code 40 and 55 are very noticeably "light" and will look much, much better. Many people will probably say larger rail can be camouflaged with some good painting and weathering and that's true, but the smaller rail still looks significantly more realistic in my opinion, especially in close-up photography.
They also provide some challenges in tracklaying since typical HO flanges have problems clearing the spike heads on handlaid track, so you might want to consider using PC board ties.
Also I would say they are also very light rail for 1910. Code 40 is less than 60 lb rail, very, very light rail. Code 55 is only 75 lb rail. I use code 70 rail for 1900 because it close to 100 lb rail and that's what was used on the line I model.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusmanThey also provide some challenges in tracklaying since typical HO flanges have problems clearing the spike heads on handlaid track, so you might want to consider using PC board ties.
Definitely. I plan on using the Pliobond method but it didn't sound like the OP was intending to handlay.
dehusman Also I would say they are also very light rail for 1910. Code 40 is less than 60 lb rail, very, very light rail. Code 55 is only 75 lb rail. I use code 70 rail for 1900 because it close to 100 lb rail and that's what was used on the line I model.
Good point - it depends on what you're modeling. For my prototypes at the time, virtually all rail was 30lb.
Yes!
My 1960s layout was HO/HOn3. I used code 70 for HO, code 55 for most HOn3, and code 40 for HOn3 spurs. Track was handlaid, but I did use turnout kits. Spikes were no problem with code 55 if wheels met NMRA specs and proper spikes were used. For code 40, you need to glue the rail down and/or use metal-foil-topped ties (gapped to prevent electrical shorts) spaced every inch or so to hold the rail in gauge. I think the effect is stunning, and for a small layout isn't a great burden to install.
Mark
In 1900-1920, the transition from 65lb and 80lb rail to 100-120lb rail was taking place on the Class 1 railroads. The rail needed to be upgraded, tie plates were added, ties were creosoted and increased in size - all in an effort to reduce wear and stand up better to the bigger and heavier locomotives and cars that were taking over. Some of the lesser railroads - especially narrow gauge - never had the financial wherewithal to make these upgrades to their trackwork.
Since I model the 1900 era, that part of history is important. And knowing that I am modeling short lines in HO and HOn3 makes a difference, too. Because I wanted to showcase the difference between standard and narrow gauge, I am using code 70 and 55 on standard gauge, and code 55 and 40 on the narrow gauge. Admittedly, the code 70 is too large for what my prototype would have used in 1900. So I applaud your choices.
A big factor in how rail looks depends on the viewing angle. Model rail tends to be wider than scale in the rail head - and some model rail is much wider than others. So if the primary viewing angle is from above (often the case in model railroading) using rail smaller than scale height will look more realistic. FWIW, ME rail has a narrower head than W/S which is narrower than Atlas. OTOH, if you have an eye-level layout or frequently view the track at eye level, rail height is more of a factor than rail width.
You can successfully spike code 40 rail with ME micro spikes (larger than scale, but about the same size heads as their flex track) and run RP25 flanges. A better looking alternative is the near scale size spikes from Proto87 Stores (http://www.proto87.com/model-railroad-rail.html). The scale size spikes, wood ties with occasional rough-hewn mixed in, no ties plates, and small rail make a very nice representation of 1900 era track.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
fwright You can successfully spike code 40 rail with ME micro spikes (larger than scale, but about the same size heads as their flex track) and run RP25 flanges. A better looking alternative is the near scale size spikes from Proto87 Stores (http://www.proto87.com/model-railroad-rail.html). The scale size spikes, wood ties with occasional rough-hewn mixed in, no ties plates, and small rail make a very nice representation of 1900 era track.
Some things I have learned - some from reading, and some from "don't ask me how I know this"
I have not personally experienced this, but in either the HOn3 or handlaidtrack Yahoo groups, some folks have reported blunt tips on many of their ME micro spikes. Apparently quality control is not quite as good as one would like. Some of my spikes had webs of flash material on the points - these did tend to bend more often.
When I push the spikes in, I grab the spike by the shank, not the head. The spike is inserted to the point where the plier tips are touching the tie. Then I push in the remainder of the spike using the head. Force behind the push has to be quite limited with code 55 and 40 rail. Even code 70 will get vertical kinks if the spikes are pushed home with force. The head just needs to be touching the rail base, and no more.
Sanding the tops of the ties prior to laying the rail is critical, especially with code 55 and smaller rail. The rail needs to be evenly supported by the tie to avoid vertical kinks when spiking. I use a sanding boat made from 8" long 1x2 pine board, with the ends rounded. Sandpaper is cut to fit around the 2 ends, and fastened on top using push pins. I sand until the color of all the ties changes, vacuum the dust and excess ballast, and then restain as desired.
I use(d) Campbell ties and Timberline redwood ties - at least until my stock runs out. I really like the redwood ties for my region and era, but they do tend to split on spiking. The bigger the spike, the more tendency to split the tie (pretty obvious in retrospect). I can't comment on Kappler ties. The Proto87 spikes are smaller, have a better shape, and are made from stronger material. I look forward to trying them in the next few months.
Pre-bend any curves in the rails before laying them. Don't be afraid to cut off the last inch of the rail that won't bend into a smooth curve. Not knowing this when I first started hand laying track caused me no end of grief. Without pre-bent rails, I was depending on the spikes to hold the curve in the rail against the rail's natural spring. Caused bent spikes, and many re-spikes trying to get the gauge right with no kinks at rail joints on curves. Rail joiners might have helped (I don't use them with handlaid track), but most rail joiners I have seen eventually give under the spring of unbent rail, allowing a kink to form. IMHO, if you don't pre-bend the rail, you are pretty much forced into soldered rail joints on curves. Even then, spikes may not hold against the tension away from the joints over the long term.
Just my experiences
I model a 1910 regional coal hauler, so all things being equal, my preference would be to use code 70 track. However I use code 83 track for the following reasons:
1. Virtually any track component you need is available (turnouts of any flavor (curved, wye’s, different sizes) crossings, etc., last I looked, the availability for code 70 was limited to a few turnouts, and nothing for the smaller sizes. I don’t have the desire to hand lay track, especially the complex parts.
2. Code 100 would be pretty hard to rationalize for my modeling application, but the visual difference between code 83 and 70 is pretty small.
3. Code 70 and under is pretty fragile. I like the idea that I can lean on any section of track on the layout to reach an otherwise “just-out-of-reach” object. This may sound a little ham-fisted, but scenery is rarely constructed to be weight bearing and having track that is “solid ground” is a convenient feature.
But it all depends on one’s priorities. For track, I’m willing to accept thirteen-hundredths of an inch of rail height for greater component availability and durability, but as one who likes camelbacks, I fully understand that the world is a varied place!
Jim