If this is your first layout, I'd go with Kato code 83 track-with-roadbed. It's nickel silver and has a narrow profile, very close to true scale size. It gives you a great looking line, is easy to put together and to change, and saves a lot of hassle trying to lay cork roadbed and all that.
Hey, I've been in the hobby since 1971 and I'm using it on my new layout!!
IRONROOSTER wrote:I'd also avoid steel track if you come across any. EnjoyPaul
I'd also avoid steel track if you come across any.
Enjoy
Paul
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
There is a wide range of turnouts, crossovers, and such "specialty" trackwork available in Code 83, and I think that it is a good choice for someone beginning in HO. You should be able to develop a great initial railroad with what is commercially available, and then as you learn more you can evaluate whether or not you wish to try something else later as you develop your skills. There is some older equipment out there (especially European made, like older Riverossi imported by AHM) that have deep flanges that would likely rattle some on Code 83 turnouts. Virtually all newly produced HO models will operate just fine on Code 83. (Recognize that there are folks that do "fine scale" in HO with prototype-sized wheel size that in turn may require special trackage.)
[My first layout was sectional track brass Code 100. The next two layouts were nickle-silver Code 70 handlaid, and this winter I completed tracklaying on the "new" layout with nickle-silver Code 70 flex-track and commercial turnouts.]
Bill
MisterBeasley wrote:Other than used track, can you even buy brass track anymore?
It still shows up occasionally as sectional track in toy train sets. Other than that, train shows, yard sales and E-(Gad)-bay.
I would avoid sectional track, especially if you have grades. It's all but impossible to change grade without having a dip or peak, since the track (especially that with roadbed attached) isn't flexible in the vertical direction, either. Likewise, it's impossible to lay a proper spiral easement or tapered superelevation for curves with sectional track, whereas ANY flex can be shaped to handle ANY track configuration your trains can handle.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with flex track and handlaid specialwork)
I don't really know (just a guess), Mr. B., but I'll bet it is available on ebay. I agree that it is best avoided judging by many threads about track types and salvaging older track.
In a nutshell, Code 100 is great stuff, no matter who makes it...it can be made to look quite good. Well, except in photgraphs. That is where even the not-very-discerning eye can really tell that Code 100 is just too big. But it is plentiful and easy to work with. It works well for older engines with what we call "pizza-cutter" flanges.
If you were to conduct an informal poll here and on other forums, I'd bet you would find that there is a heavy push on Code 83, and probably darned near as much on Code 70 because modern trains run well on them when they are properly placed, and also because digital photography had invited many to get into that part of enjoying the hobby. The smaller rails look much better.
I am talking about nickel-silver rails. Not the older brass.
-Crandell
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
jhorvath wrote:Thanks Bill. In terms of Code, sticking with one makes sense, but functionally for a model RR does it matter which Code? My guess is they would all work OK, 83 seems to be the most popular, so I'll probably just go that route. thanks again.
Thanks Bill.
In terms of Code, sticking with one makes sense, but functionally for a model RR does it matter which Code? My guess is they would all work OK, 83 seems to be the most popular, so I'll probably just go that route.
thanks again.
You should be fine with C83. Some old locos and cars had large flange wheels that would hit the spike heads if the rail was too short. Almost all new equipment doesn't have this problem. Avoid brass track and track with fiber ties as mentioned.
IMHO, avoid any HO track made of brass. Brass track is relatively inexpensive and is found on many "beginner" train sets and it can work okay. The difficulty is that when brass oxidizes from exposure to the air, that oxidant does not conduct electricity. If one regularly cleans brass track with a "bright boy" or similar, it can work well, but that gets to be a problem - especially for hidden trackage or that which is far from the edge of the layout. It is not that brass track means that it is poorly made, it is just the electrical conductivity factor. Nickle-silver track also oxidizes, but its oxidant conducts electricity, so a cleaning once in awhile for accumulated dust or grime is all that is needed. You'll likely have fewer stalled or jerky locomotives using nickle-silver rail.
Pick the rail size ("Code") that suits your equipment. While different rail sizes can be used on the same layout, such as smaller sized rail on spur tracks, I'd suggest sticking with one size on that first layout.
Hi,
This is my first post, and figured since I'm about ready to start building my first layout it was a good time for it...
I've read a lot about what track is the best and it seems, as with everything, there are pros and cons (I'm having fun with this as I decide on what DCC to use, I'm leaning heavily toward the EasyDCC wireless system).
My question is, is there any HO scale track that I should avoid using altogether? If so, what and why?
Thanks for your time!
Jon