Code 70 vs 83 for pre WWI layout

[NevinW]

Here is another question:  Has anyone mixed code 75 Peco turnouts with code 70 ME flex track? - Nevin

[NevinW]

I do want to point out that the roads that I am interested in used 4-6-0's and 2-8-0's. These were all built between 1905 and 1908 after the era of the 4-4-0. The Bachmann 4-6-0 is a deadringer for the Tonopah and Tidewater and Bullfrog Goldfiled engines. There were no 4-4-0's in Southern Nevada except for the Silver Peak RR. - Nevin

[tomikawaTT]

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?

• Code 70 - 6 HO inches high, representing 100#-110# prototypes.
• Code 55 - 4.78 HO inches high, equivalent to 65# prototype rails.
• Code 40 - 3.48 HO inches high, equivalent to 40# prototype rails.

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)

[Gandy Dancer]

Compromise: go with Peco code 75.

This is what I was going to say, but orsonroy beat me to it.   The only thing that annoys me about Peco (both code 100 and code 75) is the European looking curve in the departure rail and points of the turnouts.

[fwright]

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]

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!

[NevinW]

Theoretically I agree with you entirely about going code 55 for such a layout. However, I recently took a tour of a large, absolutely beautiful layout with extremely well done, painted and ballasted track. I was surprised to find that it was all shinohara code 100. That suggested to me that the careful preparation and ballasting of track was more important than the actual size of the rail. 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.

Most likely I will end up using code 70 Micro Engineering turnouts for the mainline and code 55 for the sidings. I will keep looking on ebay for Shinohara code 70 crossings and other things that I will need. - Nevin

[UP2CSX]

The question I would ask is how big is your planned layout? If it's relatively small and you have a lot of foreground scenery, I think code 70 would be well worth the effort since the hallmark of Nevada mining roads was light rail. If you're thinking something large, I agree with Art, code 83 will be just fine because the track size will get lost in the detail anyway. I don't know if you have a specific prototype in mind but Nevada mining roads didn't use much in the way of ballast except what the Fresno scrapers dug out of the surrounding desert. It was common for the sand/ballast to pretty much cover most of the ties so code 83 is going to a look a lot smaller than if it was on a nice groomed bed of ballast like a mainline railroad.   

[ARTHILL]

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.

[NevinW]

I have been planning on using code 70 for my pre- world war one Nevada mining railroad and I think it would look better, but code 83 has definitely far more track components readily available. To my eye there is a huge and obvious difference between code 100 and code 83 but I am not sure that the difference in code 70 and code 83 is visually that obvious or worth the work. However It might be more obvious in photography. Is the scrouging for code 70 track components, especially crossings and specialized turnouts worth the visual difference between the two? - Nevin