I've seen quite a few extremely well done layouts feature in MR, a lot of them set in the Transition Era of late 1940's thru 1955 or so. Several things stood out, not the least of which is the well done "feeling" of the era, which is generally outstanding. Yet I'm flummoxed when looking at the track, whch a lot of modlers chose code 100 rail for the era. My thoughts would be that most of the prototype trackage was in the 110 pound range, which is quite a bit smaller than what is represented in the code 100 rail. I model the mid-50's and use code 70 track, which to me fits the era more. I guess my question is why code 100 rather than code 70or even code 83? Does it have to do something with ease of getting good trackwork so you don't have as many wreckcidents?? I'd appreciate any comments on this matter.
GN_Fan I've seen quite a few extremely well done layouts feature in MR, a lot of them set in the Transition Era of late 1940's thru 1955 or so. Several things stood out, not the least of which is the well done "feeling" of the era, which is generally outstanding. Yet I'm flummoxed when looking at the track, whch a lot of modlers chose code 100 rail for the era. My thoughts would be that most of the prototype trackage was in the 110 pound range, which is quite a bit smaller than what is represented in the code 100 rail. I model the mid-50's and use code 70 track, which to me fits the era more. I guess my question is why code 100 rather than code 70or even code 83? Does it have to do something with ease of getting good trackwork so you don't have as many wreckcidents?? I'd appreciate any comments on this matter.
I've seen quite a few extremely well done layouts feature in MR, a lot of them set in the Transition Era of late 1940's thru 1955 or so. Several things stood out, not the least of which is the well done "feeling" of the era, which is generally outstanding.
Yet I'm flummoxed when looking at the track, whch a lot of modlers chose code 100 rail for the era.
My thoughts would be that most of the prototype trackage was in the 110 pound range, which is quite a bit smaller than what is represented in the code 100 rail. I model the mid-50's and use code 70 track, which to me fits the era more.
I guess my question is why code 100 rather than code 70or even code 83? Does it have to do something with ease of getting good trackwork so you don't have as many wreckcidents?? I'd appreciate any comments on this matter.
In general true, most rail was smaller than what HO code 100 would scale out to be. But as is often the case, it depends.
For starters, it is my understanding the PRR used bigger rail on some of thier mainlines at that time and HO code 100 is close to their 155 lb rail. See the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_profile
Some modelers are not as fastidious as you maybe and feel that one weathered, code 100 track blends in and the out-of-scale size appearance is muted and is acceptable to them.
To answer your question, maybe some modelers simply aren't up to your standards. Welcome to the hobby!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
The reasons behind the use of code 100 rail and trackage during the 1950s is due to the reasons given in the prior posts. The flange issue was not only with Rivarossi locomotives. Everything had the large, sharp flanges. The lower profile RP-25 flange was not made a "standard" until the 1960s. Up until then, manufacturers established their own "standard" wheel profile which was overwhelmingly a "pizza cutter" flanged creation. Part of the reason behind the pizza cutters was the fact that other than the snap-track included in train sets, prefab track was in its infancy.
With track being constructed by owners/builders with widely varying skills and abilities, the general line of thought was, the way to keep the trains on these rails lay in wheels that disguised those ills. Code 100 rail's bulk made it possible for a wider range of skills and abilities to work with it, versus code 70. In the late 1950s/early 1960s, prefabicated turnouts and flex track of consistant quality made it possible to have wheels with the same qualities, thus the RP-25. Abandoning the tinplate-like wheels allowed the use of smaller, more realistic code 70 and 83 rail, thus the demand for those codes in prefab track.
GN_FanI've seen quite a few extremely well done layouts feature in MR, a lot of them set in the Transition Era of late 1940's thru 1955 or so. Several things stood out, not the least of which is the well done "feeling" of the era, which is generally outstanding. Yet I'm flummoxed when looking at the track, which a lot of modelers chose code 100 rail for the era....
I haven't seen a Model Railroader magazine in some time, but perhaps some of the layouts to which you're referring were built before the time of code 83. Code 70 has been around longer than code 83, I think, but many locomotives and rolling stock from the '60s (and earlier) had deeper wheel flanges than what's common today, and code 100 would have been a logical choice.
Code 83 is too heavy for my branchline-style layout set in the late '30s, but it was readily available and affordable when I started my layout in the late '80s/early '90s.Painting the rail (and ties, too, if you wish) can go a long way to making oversize rail look acceptable. All of the track on the main level of my layout is Atlas code 83...
...and the chances of me changing it to a smaller size are nil.
On the partial upper level, I'll use some code 70, along with some salvaged N scale rail, on Central Valley tie strips, but only on a couple of rural industrial spurs, and only because I have it on-hand.My layout is unlikely to ever appear in a magazine, so I've no need to worry about my oversize rail. You may, of course, see some of it here, but feel free to ignore it.
Wayne
I believe the OP is asking why recently built layouts set in the 1950's seem to often use code 100 rail, not why model railroads built in the 1950's used code 100 rail...and yes, it does seem like in recent months more layouts have been shown in magazines using code 100 than I've seen for some time.
I think in some cases, the modeller has been in the hobby a long time, so still has equipment that runs better on the higher track (for the reasons already mentioned). In some cases it may be that the modellers only started recently, but began using track (like Bachmann E-Z track or Atlas snap-track) that was code 100, and just have decided to stick with what they know in later layouts.
GN_Fan I guess my question is why code 100 rather than code 70or even code 83?
For the 50s I would use C70 and for modern railroads C83 would be the better choice becase welded rail is getting heavier due to the heavy engines and cars and some of those cars can weigh up to 110 tons.
My question why isn't C70 the derfacto standard size for period layouts? Code 83 should be he defacto standard for modern layouts. That decades old excuse "modelers having models with deep flanges" no longer works.
Personal thought. We demanded more accurate models with correct details but,overlook that track is a model too and should be modeled as closely as possible.
IMHO C100 should go into the history books along with X2F couplers,brass track,brass wheels(on engines) and deep flanges.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Well, unless you're doing Proto87, you're using overwide wheels with too deep flanges. So having track a little wider and taller fits right in.
Personally I don't notice minor differences between rail codes at a normal viewing distance. And closeup photography really shows up the non scale wheels.
Paul
Some modelers have to make a choice on how to spend their limited hobby budgets and in so doing, go with less expensive code 100 rail. While the price difference isn't necessarily huge, it is still there. It does make me curious what would happen to code 83 prices if manufacturers dropped code 100 altogether, forcing those sales most likely to code 83. Model railroading is all about selective compression. Some items get compressed more than others.
As for more detailed models, I'm not the one who demanded them. I was perfectly content with my Roundhouse and Athearn shake the box kits, thank you. Not saying I don't appreciate the more highly detailed stuff, its just that I don't necessarily need it. Track is the same for me.
Mike
I went with code 100 on my layout for a pretty simple reason. I inherited my dad's stuff when he passed away and all his Peco turnouts were Code 100. I'm talking 50+ turnouts. I wasn't going to sell them just to buy more expensive code 83 turnouts.
I also model the 1980's so heavy rail is pretty normal. With a litte paint to rust up the rail and painting the ties and proper ballast its hides it well enough for me. In some cases (such as the towns), rail is completely hidden so it doesn't matter to me what code that is.
Also all the flex track I was able to salvage from my Dad's layout(s) was also code 100. I have never found a justification to switch.
Maybe if my house burned down and I lost everything (knock on wood, that doesn't happen ) I would start over in code 83 but for now its not happening.
Colorado Front Range Railroad: http://www.coloradofrontrangerr.com/
This might be useful:
http://www.icrr.net/rails.htm
Well down the page, note the "Pennsylvania Railroad Standard" or similar title, and it shows 155 pound rail at 8" in height. This means Code 100 scale rails are in the 165-ish pound range. Except for crane rails in heavy industry, nobody used it.
Code 100 is oversized in HO, no doubt about it. However, paint the rails rail brown, rather than leaving them bright nickel silver, and they look a lot better. I was able to brush paint all the rail on my layout in a single evening.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
dstarr Code 100 is oversized in HO, no doubt about it. However, paint the rails rail brown, rather than leaving them bright nickel silver, and they look a lot better. I was able to brush paint all the rail on my layout in a single evening.
David, should I dilute my paint before painting my 100 rail? Also is it ok to paint the ties too? (I use craft store acrylics, they don't smell) Thanks, Rob
You can dilute the paint for flow. If you dilute it with a clear acrylic, the paint base isn't affected. If you dilute with something else, like alcohol or water, you may run into adhesion problems.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
i used code 100 on a 1890 backwoods logging railroad, it was way oversize but i had lots of it ..... once painted, stained and ballasted it didn't look noticeably oversize ..
By no means did the Pennsylvania RR use that exceptionally heavy rail everywhere. And the PRR heavy rail had a profile that your average Code 100 rail only approximates so it has issues even if used where called for.
Code 100 is I guess a relic of an earlier era -- a holdover from where nearly everyone laid their own track, and Code 100 gave those who were not terribly expert at it a fighting chance at a layout that would run -- but it's a relic that is unlikely to go away totally soon.
It might be added that other scales such as O also use or used over-heavy rail back when Code 100 was so popular for HO (and for OO, 1:76 scale where it is more appropriate), and perhaps for the same reason that it gave a person of normal skill a better chance at hand laying usable track. I think some O scalers used Code 172 where Code 148 might have been more appropriate.
There were not all that many sources for "raw" rail back in the 1940s and early 1950s.
Nonetheless the excellent modeler David Barrow, who had a layout with handlaid Code 70 rail if memory serves, tore it out and switched to Code 100 flex track for his more recent "representational" layouts (where the strucures are simple structure shapes without color or detail made of plain foam core board) because he was only very loosely fastening the track to the domino benchwork, if it was attached at all, ballast was minimal and loose stone, not bonded, so the track had to have its own structural integrity coming primarily from the rail itself. He decided Code 100 was his best choice for what he was trying to do. Whether he gave Code 83 flex track a try I do not know.
Now was some rail heavier in the transition era than later? Perhaps. I have read, in a Trains magazine article some years ago, that there was a very brief period at the end of the transition period, so early 1950s, when some professional bridge designers felt that bridge design could be made lighter (thus cheaper) because the axle loads on Fs and GPs and 40 to 50 ft freight cars were light enough, lighter than on the newly retired heavy modern steam locomotives, and that they were no longer designing bridges for massive 2-10-4 axle loads (and the pounding that steam locomotives gave rail at speed) and the like. Fortunately it soon became evident that diesel locomotives and freight cars were both going to become bigger and heavier and relatively few of these new lighter bridges were built.
It might be that for similar reasons some railroad engineering staffs felt lighter rail might be usable with steam out of the picture. This is pure speculation by me but I do definitely recall that article on bridges and the trap that railroads narrowly averted in thinking that lighter axle loads were the new normal.
Dave Nelson
dstarrCode 100 is oversized in HO,
Russell