Hi all,
As of last night, I've decided to get off my butt and build a small HO shelf layout - likely an Inglenook of some sort, probably around 2x6'. One concern upon jumping back into the hobby after a number of years is what sort of track I should utilize. I've basically broken down my "need list" as follows:
1) I want the track to look as strong as possible visually (and be a good performer, too). Since the layout will be tiny, the rails will play a very intimate roll in appearance, as I plan for a very high detail-to-inch ratio (and track is obviously going to eat up a lot of my footprint).
2) Price isn't a big concern, given that this is such a small railroad. A few bucks extra on turnouts isn't a big deal since I'll only need 3-4.
3) I don't own any older rolling stock or locomotives that might cause flange issues - everything is more recent than 2008, and an Atlas or Walthers product.
4) I have no desire to hand-lay - it just isn't in the cards this go-around.
5) My era is a sleepy, little-used branch line in the PNW, in the 1970s-early 80s timeframe.
So, taking all that into consideration, what brand of track should I buy, and what code? And, perhaps most pragmatically, where (online, there is no LHS) should I purchase it?
Thank you.
Code 83 has far more options for turnouts than code 70.
I order most of my track from MB Klein (www.modeltrainstuff.com).
I'm using Peco code 83 turnouts simply because they are extremely reliable and they have a positive throw mechanism that allows them to be used without motors or ground throws.
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
Onewolf Code 83 has far more options for turnouts than code 70. I order most of my track from MB Klein (www.modeltrainstuff.com). I'm using Peco code 83 turnouts simply because they are extremely reliable and they have a positive throw mechanism that allows them to be used without motors or ground throws.
Is Code 83 too large for the rural branchline look I am trying to capture? Obviously, I'm not modeling proto 87 here or anything - concessions are natural. I just don't want to make too many of them.
Shrike ArghastIs Code 83 too large for the rural branchline look I am trying to capture?
Yes. Code 83 represents (IIRC) 132 pound rail which is common on US main lines.
The only code 70 turnouts I know of that are readily available are the Shinohara's. The good news is that they are very nice. If you are happy with #6 as your only choice, then you can use Micro Engineering.
Like Onewolf, I buy from MB Klein.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
If fine apearance is important, Micro Engineering is a good option.
This is ME code 70.
The left two tracks here are ME code 70, while the industry spur is code 55. The spikes and ties contribute to overall appearance as well as the size of the rail. Note the difference between this track and the code 70 above.
This is Atlas 83. It's easy to work with compared to ME, but the spike heads are a lot larger. Weathering can mitigate the cosmetic compromises to some extent.
Compare the various track brands to photos of your modeling subject and go from there. ME offers #6 turnouts in codes 70 and 83, and will soon have #5. Curved turnouts and other special sizes can be had from Shinohara (their code 83 line is sold under the Walthers brand).
Rob Spangler
carl425 Shrike Arghast Is Code 83 too large for the rural branchline look I am trying to capture? Yes. Code 83 represents (IIRC) 132 pound rail which is common on US main lines. The only code 70 turnouts I know of that are readily available are the Shinohara's. The good news is that they are very nice. If you are happy with #6 as your only choice, then you can use Micro Engineering. Like Onewolf, I buy from MB Klein.
Shrike Arghast Is Code 83 too large for the rural branchline look I am trying to capture?
Sorry to be a nag, but is Shinohara DCC friendly?
Shrike ArghastSorry to be a nag, but is Shinohara DCC friendly?
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe they are not. The wiring for DCC site explains what to do about it.
Their code 70 turnouts are not. The code 83 branded as Walthers are.
Hi Shrike Arghast
I tend to agree with one wolf and say use code 83 rails I would sugest Peco.
But where Peco is concerened I am very biased and won't look at anything else
I found a good track and I stuck to it.
OK the rail is strictly speaking a little heavy for a sleepy branch line but I will take reliabilaty of track every time.
Actualy on a very little used line the track could quite easily look erhm yes well lets just say in such a state that it is probably unwise to try and replicate if you want to run a model train on it.
For your layout reliable track and good slow running loco's will be very important.
As for where to purchase I will leave that one to the USA listee's to advise you.
As for looks by the time the ballast weeds etc and if you choose to track paint go on it will look fine.
And given that your talking about having all the bits like cattle grids, track side boxes, phone cabins and myriad of other things that would be there I don't think the rail size will have a chance to stand out.
regards John
I switched from Code 70 Shinohara to Code 83 because the Code 70 switches were "power routing" (I think that was the word they used) and I am electrically challenged and I just never could understand how to wire them.
Going out on a limb here: I would say that code 55 would look best in this situation.
ME makes Code 55 flex but switches could be problematic….. To see how they compare for yourself, buy a stick of each – codes 55, 70 and 83 and see which you like the best in terms of appearance. 55 is more finicky than 70 which is slightly more finicky than 83 – but basic good tracklaying skills are needed to lay any track to run reliably and these skills don’t change much when you change codes.
If you are making this as a first layout, then I recommend that you use code 70 or 83. ME looks best but is stiffer to bend (not too hard to deal with - I have used several hundred feet of it on my layout). If you go the code 55 flex route, you could use code 70 switches (ME no.6). This would require transitioning between codes at the turnouts – not too difficult but definitely time consuming. Another option would be to use code 70 for the main line and code 55 for the spurs. Or…use code 83 for the main line and code 70 for the spurs…
As for the DCC friendly thing, this is something that will take some study on your part to understand basic DC switch wiring. There are so many different versions of switches out there that it is hard to make blanket statements about a brand because most have changed over the last 15 years. IMHO: it is better to learn the basic switch wiring schemes (power routing, dead frog, live frog, tadpoles, tree frogs, etc…) and apply this knowledge to whatever you buy. BTW: The DCC friendly version is just a variant of basic switch wiring concepts.
Just an opinion: There are a variety of sites out there that explain switch wiring but be cautious with the oft recommended “Wiring for DCC” site run by Allen Gartner. What he says is accurate but he is over the top on some things and he recommends certain things that are often unnecessary…
Have fun,
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
If you are only going to have one size rail on your layout, it doesn't make any difference what you use. If you are going to have a main line on your layout to feed the branch line, then you need to have the main larger than the branch. It could be code 100 and code 83; code 83 and code 70; or code 70 and code 55. You just need to show a difference in rail sizes.
If it's branch only, code 100 might be a little large but who could tell? There would be nothing to compare it to. If the scenery is done right, the rails fade into the backround.
Most of the branch lines I have seen, the ties are barely visable. Using code 83 and burying the ties would be graet.
trainnut1250 IMHO: it is better to learn the basic switch wiring schemes (power routing, dead frog, live frog, tadpoles, tree frogs, etc…) and apply this knowledge to whatever you buy.
IMHO: it is better to learn the basic switch wiring schemes (power routing, dead frog, live frog, tadpoles, tree frogs, etc…) and apply this knowledge to whatever you buy.
Tree frogs and tadpoles.... Yep, that's some advanced stuff right there.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Rob: Love your photos and cast my vote also for ME track. I like its firmness when curved and won't 'snap back' into a straight light.
Who says you can't use one code of track on a layout with a mainline and sidings? I use that to avoid derailments from the transitions and saves $$. Will anyone really notice a difference between codes of track?
kasskabooseRob: Love your photos
kasskabooseWill anyone really notice a difference between codes of track?
Since one of the purposes of Rob's photos was to show the difference in rail sizes, these two comments make no sense together. Look at Rob's middle picture again. If you can't tell the difference then you should use code 100.
The transitions can be a little tedious if you roll-your-own, but they're not really that difficult. If you don't want to do it yourself, ME makes transition joiners and Walthers makes a 6" long transition track.