TRACK CODE??? AND WILL IT OPERATE???

[Anonymous]

Can any one tell me what the proto-typical track code would be for a medium size engine terminal in the transitional era (Steam and Diesel) of the early 1950's in the North-East United States? My guess is either code 83 or 70 but I could be wrong and I would like the opinion of the experts at Trains.com.

Also, how operational are some of the older (model) engines on the smaller code 83 or lower track? Assuming every model engine will run on code 100 (sure) and most will run on code 83, and maybe fewer will operate correctly on code 70, does the operating modeler have to shun prototype track to operate his trains without having to spend big $$$ on newer engins that claim to run on code 70 track?

Thanks for reading and your comments are appreciated.

[Big_Boy_4005]

The ones to watch out for when it comes to flange depth are the old Rivarossi's. There may be a couple of others that won't work on anything less than code 100.

Code 83 is considered by most to be the largest realistic rail for use on mainlines in HO. For that service facility, a code 70 would be very realistic, and most modern engines should handle it.

[dknelson]

Assuming flange depth is not an issue for you, keep this in mind. You might want to be able to show that the secondary tracks are a smaller code than the main line, and that marginal sidings are smaller yet. In HO, if you have Code 70 on your main line (which might be the most accurate) then that leaves Code 55 and Code 40 for the other purposes, and those small sizes are tricky to work with. That is the main reason why I am using Code 100 for my main line even though it is too large to be prototypical -- I wan to be able to show that secondary mains and passing tracks are smaller yet, Code 83, and the industrial sidings are still smaller, Code 70. I might try to work in a little Code 40 but have not decided yet.
It sometimes comes down to, what do you want to be prototypical about? The rail size, or the successively smaller sizes for different purposes? I chose the latter.
BY the way I am reminded that Peco has some Code 77 stuff that offers a good middle ground.
Dave Nelson

[ndbprr]

I would suspect that engine terminal rail would have been fairly heavy. As engines got bigger and heavier so would have the rail to support them. It isn't like it was miles and miles of rail. The one caveat would be that the earlier a railroad dieselized the lighter the rail would have been since they didn't present the massive weights of the last steam engines.