Code 80 vs code 55....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cmajor

So for a beginner using code 55 track would be better? A little more idiot proof? Or am I just reading into that to much?

It's the oppisite of idiot proof. Code 55 in HO scale will require more attention being paid to wheel flange depth. Most lower end or less expensive rolling stock that have oversized wheel flanges, or those that don't meet NMRA standards, could hit the rail spikes and derail.
Eventhough a person may be a beginner in model railroading, it doesn't mean they don't have skills. It's not the simplest way to start out, but there is no real reason why an adult beginner can't use code 55. They need to make sure that the wheels on the rolling stock they buy will not touch the rail spikes and will run smoothly through turnouts (frogs). Care in laying track, as with all size rail, needs to be job 1.
Code 100 track is little less expensive and you can run cheap toy trains without much problems related to track. It's a good choice for kids to play with toy trains because It's easier for their small hands to connect the track together. It is also what you would use to model todays super duty class 1 railroad main line with heavy weight cars.



Code refers to the hight of the rail itself, without ties.
Code 100 is .100" high.
Code 83 is .083" high
Code 55 is .055" high

[IRONROOSTER]

While it would be simpler to use the same size for all of your railroad, some people like the contrast of using smaller rail for sidings, branchlines, etc. This is what the real railroads did. But some people have trouble laying the smaller rail and of course you have to deal with the transitions. In the end, most of us don't have the time to replicate every detail and so you have to pick and choose.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

So for a beginner using code 55 track would be better? A little more idiot proof? Or am I just reading into that to much?

[Anonymous]

Ditto to what Steelmonsters said.
Early on in model railroading (generally considered toy trains), most rolling stock had oversized flanges to keep trains on track and tall rail to prevent the flange from hitting the rail spikes.
Track code, as well as wheel width and flange size and contour, is mostly important to the fine scale modeler. The average model railroader may consider various rail sizes if they are modeling a prototype or era. Nevertheless, the smaller the rail (code 70 or lower), the more careful you need to be with wheel flange size. And if you are using narrrow wheel tread width, track gage is more critical. There's more to learn here.
Others, especially visitors who know little about railroads, won't notice or care about the size of the rail if it's oversized or not. Only you will know by the knowledge you gained from all the research you've done. I don't know about others, but I tend to be my own worst critic.

[SteelMonsters]

The prototype used to have smaller track for mainlines. Over time trains have increasing in weight and the track replaced with larger size. The smaller track is used for lower used track and guardrails. Currently the most common rail is 141 lb/yd rail where older track was lighter.

If you look at prototype photos, spurs and sidings are usually laid on the ground instead of on ballast that the mains sit. The rails are also thinner depending on how much the railroad uses that line.

In HO has code 55, 70, 75, 80, 83, and oversized 100. The other codes represent various rail weights used. Other scales have their own representation if prototypical.

In the end, it's a small detail that only serious modlers will pick up If it's not prototypical, a rivet counter will probably point that out.

[Jacktal]

Along reading different posts and replies on this forum,I have at a few occasions noted that some model railroaders use code 80 tracks for the mainlines and elected to reserve code 55 for sidings,spurs,yards,etc.I'm curious about this thinking...wouldn't it be much simpler to go with the same gauge all the way,whether it is 55 or 80.Is it a matter of derailment proofing,or is it more prototypical this way,or...or...or...whatever?