Peco track is a lot more 'rugged' than M-E - The M-E turnouts seem to develop electrical issues over the years. And as you noted there are 'wye' turnouts available.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Thanks, folks, for your input.
I think I will use Peco track, as it is more readily available and I can buy it in the UK for a lot less than the ME track.
I have a stash of HO Atlas code 100 track for a future small On30 layout, the ties on the stuff are absolutely massive for HO but just about right for On30, besides when its ballasted its even less noticable, and its a bit cheaper than Peco, at least back when I bought it was.
Have fun with your trains
zstripe Fred W, Is this the one, You were referring to: http://www.icrr.net/rails.htm Frank
Fred W,
Is this the one, You were referring to:
http://www.icrr.net/rails.htm
Frank
The table I saw in the article was a subset of the tables in the link. Thank you very much. To get the correct rail code, simply select the weight rail you want to model, look up the "depth" in the chart, and divide by your scale (48 for O, 87.1 for HO). As can be seen from the tables, the correlation of height to rail weight is not exact to begin with, so getting in the ball park is sufficient for our models.
Fred W
The rail code simply states how tall the rail is in thousandths of inches. Code 83 rail is 0.083" high, which scales to just shy of 4" in O scale. Code 100 rail scales to 4.8" high.
The November 1962 Model Railroader Clinic was about model and prototype rail sizes - probably the best article I have seen on the subject. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the article just now. One of the tables contained heights for various weights of prototype rails - prototype rail was sized by the weight per yard of length.
IIRC, 4" was the height for about 40lb rail, which is probably around the rail size many narrow gauge lines initially laid their track with (some that got a later start would use 65lb rail in the beginning). 4.8" is about the height for 75lb rail. Typically, when the lighter rail wore out or was insufficient for the newer heavier locomotives, it would be replaced with somewhere between 65lb and 90lb rail. 110lb rail would be about 6" high, and code 125 rail is about right for that in O scale. However, you might want to check my figures - my memory of heights associated with a rail weight could be off. Since I model 19th Century in HO, code 70 is really too big - code 55 and code 40 would be more accurate.
The D&RGW K classes (2-8-2s) didn't do very well on less than 90lb rail, which is what I believe the current Colorado tourist operations use.
So my recommendation depends upon era and nature of the line being modeled. For a 19th Century logging line, I would use lighter rail, and ballast only where drainage would be an issue. To model the D&RGW after 1910, I would use the heavier rail.
You can also use the heavier rail on the main, and the lighter rail on spurs, as the prototype frequently did. Special work and turnouts would usually use the heavier rail to reduce maintenance costs.
Finally, since On30 is pretty whimsical to begin with - there was very little 30" gauge in North America - you can decide for yourself what your prototype would have done.
my thoughts, your choices
I am in the process of finalizing my plans for my new On30 layout and I am yet undecided, which track to use. There is not much of a choice, so it´s going to be either Peco code 100 On30 track or Micro Engineering code 83 track, the latter one not offering Y switch I need. I am also not quite sure, whether code 83 rail will look too small for an O scale layout.
Would would you recommend?