Just thought I would throw some thoughts out there about my ideas for track. I'm stuck between HO and N scale for various reasons, but the biggest reasons being the better availability of locomotives in HO compared to that of N, and DCC w/sound.
For HO:
Code 83 mainline on HO scale height roadbed, code 75 passing sidings set on N scale height roadbed, and code 55 for spurs set right on top of the pink foam scenery. I say scale height roadbed because I think I would want to work with Homasote or similar roadbed material which I know has to be shaped and cut to appropriate heights. The code 83 and 75 are Peco track, the code 55 would be Micro-Engineering but at this time they are the only ones I know that make HO code 55, so that might change. Turnouts would be Peco #8 (large) on passing sidings and #6 (medium) on turnouts for spurs.
For N:
A lot simpler. Code 70 mainlines set on N scale cork roadbed and code 55 passing siding set on Z scale cork road bed. Spurs would use code 40 set right on the pink foam as long as I didn't have any problems with wheel sets, otherwise it would be code 55. Turnouts would be Peco #6's (medium) on the passing sidings and #4's (small) on the turnouts for the spurs.
Am I on a pretty good track? Framing is another question and possibly another post. Depends alot on which scale I choose and if I choose something like cork roadbed or the homasote.
Sure, that would work, but what "prototype" are you trying to copy? There is no standard that mainline is x weight, sidings y weight and yards z weight. Mostly a railroad will do what is cheapest, that means mainlines will get new rails when the old ones wear out, the old rails will be used to repair sidings and yards, old yard rails will be sorted and used again for light industrial sidings.
The same is true for yard area ballast beds. They were probably new in 1936, then that was the last time anybody bothered to put down some rock except for the odd repair here and there. Many yards and industrial spurs are ground level, either the track has subsided or the outlying weeds grew up. Again, cheap is prototype.
For example, here is a photo of a rail transtion from 135lb to rail made in 1914, still in use in MD
Note this lovely piece of track work in a yard area
all is not lost, here is a section of main, old track next to recently repaired
As I stated before, cheap is the way railroads do it. So you can construct your track any way you see fit without going afoul of the "orthodoxy police". There is no correct formula for rail codes in ANY scale including 12 inch to the foot. Your plan is an excellent plan, for you.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
There is also code 70 made for HO gauge, Micro Engineering and Shinohara. Atlas and Walthers also make code 83 track, no need to limit your self to one manufacturer. The Peco stuff gets spendy real quick.
For switches, I would use #8 on high-speed mainline crossovers and siding switches, #6 most other spots, and #4 as needed.
My rule of thumb is to use half of what the prototype would use in a similar use. A #16 switch should be good for 30 mph in 1:1 scale, those locations would get a #8. Many yard switches are #8, they would get a model #4.
Code 83 is about 132 lb rail, code 70 is about 100-90 lb, code 55 is about 75-65 lb rail. Depending on era, not much 75 lb rail used, 100 ton cars bend it all over the place. Most spurs/yard tracks have at least 90 lb rail these days.
Homosote makes a big mess when cut. I would lean towards cork or the Woodland Scenics stuff. Can certainly use N scale cork under HO scale track, if the big profile is not needed. Sheet cork is also available in many thicknesses.
I don't know much about N scale, so I can't really help out with any of that.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
WSOR 3801 For switches, I would use #8 on high-speed mainline crossovers and siding switches, #6 most other spots, and #4 as needed.
I agree except don't use #4s except under extreme circumstances and when your equipment can handle it. The radius is something like 16 inches (talking HO scale, standard gauge; narrow gauge is sharper). #5s are usually a more useful minimum except where passenger cars (or freight cars of similar length) and long-based steam locomotives will tread where you'll need #6s.
Mark
I've used the Woodland Scenics foam roadbed exclusively. I found it much easier to work with than cork, and it gives good results.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
The track planning software is what is kind of limiting me. After seeing some M-E track I really decided on that, varied tie spacing, more realistic looking tires, but my planning software doesn't include M-E stock. Kind of bumbs me. I was doing a free lance short line idea, even though they owned their own cars, but what I eventually would model would be old MILW track that led from Green Bay to Marinette/Menominee in WI and Upper MI respectively. It's now operated by the Escanaba & Lake Superior. But once again things are chaning and even though life is looking up, my job is giving me work although 3 weeks ago I got 1 day, two weeks ago they gave me 2 days, last week they gave me 3 days and this week I have 5 days on, everything is not doing my way. Little things in life are showing their ugly face at my idea's of having a train layout, so I may just end up with a small shelf layout instead of an L shaped around the walls room layout. Sort of putting a hamper on things. I can still have one with enough room to have all the "spots" I wanted, it would just be in a single town/industrial park scene instead of spread out into 4 different scenes. I basically would have to get rid of one major thing I want, long runs between "towns". I never did care if I had a continous loop but I did like having some space to ramp up a consist to a scale 25 or so and let if go to the next town.
As for N scale, well I just don't like code 80 rail, it looks way too tall. What I would prefer is Atlas to take the code 65 rail off their new True-Track line and make it into flex track. But of course now with all the suggestions it gave me more ideas . Now I'm thinking (N scale of course) code 70 main line set on Z scale cork road bed for the mainline, code 70 rail set right on top of the foam board for passing sidings, and code 55 track set on the foam board for spurs.
I knew prototype track isn't as perfect, which made me kind a bit. In all the articles from MRR and the MRR planner booklets they had people attest to how difficult it was sometimes to make the track in perfect gauge throught out the entire layout.
First thing I noticed was the wavyness to the track. Not enough to toss a car or loco off the rail, but enough to make it imperfectly straight.
That broken tie bulged up almost as high as the rail. The little paint spots to mark the ties aren't any bigger than the spray pattern from a spray can held in one spot.
This is the fiddle yard thingy. CN runs it now, dunno who had it before then. I've seen CN locos, WC, Grand Trunk, MILW which I think was one of their seemingly famous MP15 "bandits", and I remember seeing an all black high hood loco once, don't know if it was NS or NW, that was when we first moved here some 2 1/2 years ago and I wasn't into trains like I am now. The middle track is the mainline and has the tallest rail and roadbed height, the track to the right in the foreground is the second highest rail/bed height combo, although it is a dead end spur. The track in the background is the shortest rail/bed height combo, and this one is a pass-through siding. Just thought I would share .
first thing, i am speaking only about HO scale, i have no experience with N.
before you commit to any large scale purchase of switches, check with someone who has used the identical items and pick their brain.
my entire layout is code 100 and when painted and detailed, i can't see much advantage to smaller sized rail. perhaps others can and if so then they get more satisfaction from using it.
of course, i have a bunch of material left over from previous layouts and don't need nor want to buy anything new.
the early shinohara (pre walthers) switches seem to be the best quality. i like peco but every one of them required a little fiddling with the frog area account of tight gauge and wide guard rail spacing. no big deal but why should i have to redo what i already paid someone else to do?
i offer this because i stuck my neck out for 2 dozen of these things before i knew i was going to have to tinker with every one of them
grizlump