Code 70 vs Code 83

[Anonymous]

Model Railroader has been driving me nuts lately with the constant referrence to code 83 track as being the "MOST PROTOTYPICAL".
Back in about 1980, when I built my first big layout, MRR and RMC had both printed articles stating that code 70 is the closest thing to prototypical track. I did alot of studying and decided to use Shinnohara code 70 track.
This was a big decission, as there are not as many choices of rolling stock which I can use with my code 70 track. ie...IHC locos will not run properly through my code 70 dual-gauge switches.
The industry has come a long way in the area of standardizing wheels and wheelsets. There is a greater choice of rolling stock which runs on code 70 track than there was in 1980.
However the fact still remains that all the trade mags are calling code 83 track the closest to prototypical and when I get together with other model railroaders nobody is sure anymore. I am wondering if it is some kind of a scam by the Powers That Be to get us to buy new track.
Seriously
Stargrazer
www.stargrazer.net

[Anonymous]

Code 83 is the most scale to the mainline tracks of America. They are the biggest because their the most heavily used. When you step down to code 70 track you are closest to branchlines or other lighter routes. Once you start using code 55 you're modeling small light industrial spurs. In HO code 100 is oversized a bit and is not scale to anything I know of in the United States. Hope this helps.

[dknelson]

Let's put things in some perspective. Code 100 is reasonably close to some huge huge rail that the Pennsylvania RR used on certain main lines. Little Code 100 has a genuine scale cross section however.
I think the first references to Code 70 I can recall for HO were in some early 1950s issues of MR. And at that time main line rail was lighter than it is now since there were few 100 ton cars. So modelers fell into the habit of saying Code 70 was more to scale than code 100 which was (and remains) true. There was a commercial line of Code 70 track in the 1950s -- was it Kurtz Kraft? I am not aware of any Code 83 at the time. It simply was not under discussion.
Most mainlines have made the rail heavier in response to unit trains of 100 ton cars and welded rail. Code 83 is very close to this. I don't think there is a scam. Many secondary lines have rail which would still be most accurately modeled using Code 70 (or lighter).
It is a combination of things -- Code 70 was compared to Code 100 and described as more to scale, and the prototype was smaller then than now.

[Anonymous]

If I understand you correctly, code 70 rail is prototypical to the rails which were standard until recently and code 83 is prototypical to conventional rails being used nowadays?
That seems to make more sense to me.
Therefore, my code 70 rail is prototypical to railroads modeling "The Good Old Days..."

[dknelson]

I think that is a good summary of the facts. Of course it depends on the railroad, the era, and a whole host of issues -- some lines used rail which would call for Code 55 or 40, and that would have been heavy rail in 1880-1910.
For my own layout I want to portray the several rail sizes that I saw in use as a kid. But I want the structural strength of Code 100 for the mainline, so I will use Code 100 for main, Code 83 for secondary rails and Code 70 for the spurs and abandoned rail. If I was being prototypical it would be Code 70, Code 55 and Code 40 or Code 83, Code 70 and Code 55. Sometimes more realism is gained by preserving the notion of differing rail sizes for different service than by choosing the most accurate rail size for the mainline but not being able to portray the fact that different size rails are used. By the way I believe Walthers sells a transition section in HO.
This is a side issue but since size, weight and speed of trains dictate rail size, it stands to reason that they also dictate bridge size. I remember reading that bridges built to handle heavy steam locomotives were actually better equipped to deal with today's very heavy freight cars than were newer bridges built around 1950 that assumed F7 diesels and 40 ft box cars.
Dave

[BRAKIE]

Starglazer,I would not worry to much about what you read in the pages of MR or any other magazine as far as that goes.
I have been reading MR as long as I care to remember.I have noticed so unusual things over the years..for you younger folk this may sound unreal,to the older folks well,you should know by now.
Model Railroader and all other magazines push ideas if they think it is worth while...Surely there's nothing wrong with that...I have noticed that sometimes it all depends on who is making the current idea if they back it or not...Look at all the articles done on code70 now 70 is way down on the list,now they pu***he idea of code83.Now when somebody has the idea that code say 77 or 80 is exact size,well they will pu***hat idea and run many articles by the so called experts or leaders in the hobby.Many modelers will tear out their track and replace it only because that is what the leaders and expert modelers are doing and said it is the greatest in modeling since the hobby began! Now comes the biggest suprise they may not even USE it except on 2-3 modulars they built for the article in the given magazine... This CAN be done.I help fake some pictures on a modular club layout I once belong to and even came up with a fake member,Johnny sodgrassII,these pictures was suppose to be of his layout,we did change some things around in order to pull this off... We posted these pictures on the bulliten board and no one was the wiser untill a member spotted one of his cars 6 or 7 months later,everbody wanted to know what happen to that member up untill that time.
Am I saying it is a scam? NO,NOT BY ANY MEANS! I am just saying beware of what you read in magazines.

[JEIERMANN]

Interesting discussion on this subject. I was shopping today for a transition track for this very same reduction and had a hard time finding any. I believe Peco make one but I would be interested in anyone else's input regarding this subject. Also which is a good code 70 flex track??

Jack, CEOof EEE RR ( AKA The Full House Line )

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stargrazer

Back in about 1980, when I built my first big layout, MRR and RMC had both printed articles stating that code 70 is the closest thing to prototypical track.SNIPSHowever the fact still remains that all the trade mags are calling code 83 track the closest to prototypical

At no time has code 100 been commonly prototypical. In 1980, code 70 was the closest size track that was easily obtained. Since 1980 several lines of code 83 have come onto the market. It's simply evolution of products, no great conspiracy.

[BentnoseWillie]

QUOTE: I was shopping today for a transition track for this very same reduction and had a hard time finding any. I believe Peco make one but I would be interested in anyone else's input regarding this subject. Also which is a good code 70 flex track??

Peco make Code 75 & Code 100 track. I haven't seen a reducer from them. Walthers makes a 100/83 adapter, and Atlas offers 100/83 Rail joiners. I'm working on a module with 100 at junctions to other modules (about 1" per end); 83 on the main line; & 70 on sidings. I'm using rail joiners for the 100/83 transitions, and probably a rail joiner with one end flattened for 83/70, soldering the 70 to the top of the flattened end of the joiner.

Shinohara and Micro Engineering make Code 70 flextrack. The latter has nicer tie plate and spike details, but is usually more expensive.

Peco Code 75 might be another option. Peco's tie spacing and tie plate detail is a bit different from North American track, but many people have happily used Peco track for years (including me). Peco Code 75 is often easier to get than Code 70 flextrack is. Peco Electrofrog turnouts are available in Code 75, and Peco turnouts can have certain advantages depending on the situation.

[Sperandeo]

Choice of rail sizes is really a question of what size rail you're trying to model. On my own layout I'm modeling the First District of the Santa Fe's Los Angeles Division in 1947. At that time the main line was laid with 131-pound rail (rail size is expressed in pounds per yard), and code 83 is a close equivalent for that in HO scale. Sidings on the First District, however, still used smaller rail, so I'm using code 70 for those to represent prototype 110- or 115-pound rail. On spurs and other side tracks I use code 55 rail to represent even smaller prototype rails.

At San Bernardino, however, the west end of the First District, the 131-pound rail came to an end. I'll use code 70 rail for mainline tracks of the Second and Third Districts extending to Los Angeles (staging), and I'll use code 55 for the San Bernardino yard tracks.

So you see, it's not a matter of one rail size being more prototypical than another, but simply of which rail size is appropriate for the particular piece of railroad you want to model. And by the way, I think anyone would search in vain to find the statement that "code 83 rail is more prototypical (or "realistic") than code 70" in MODEL RAILROADER editorial copy, for the reasons I've just stated.

So long,

Andy

[wp8thsub]

Remember that rail height is only one factor in the appearance of model track products. The rail cross section is another consideration, as are the looks of the ties and spikes.

Most code 100 track in HO has rail with an unrealistic shape combined with grossly oversized spikes that ruin the appearance even more. Atlas' 83 is incredibly more realistic than their code 100 on both counts. Even if two products use code 83 rail, thay may not be equal in realism. Atlas code 83 has coarser spike and tie detail and a somewhat thicker rail cross section than a finer scale product like Micro Engineering.

Once you figure out the rail sizes that suit your modeling (my HO layout uses codes 83, 70 and 55 on visible track and code 100 in hidden staging), decide which track gives the overall look you want based on the remaining criteria. Atlas code 100 was chosen for staging based on the fact I could get plenty at low cost; appearance wasn't a consideration. Since much of my layout has high benchwork (placing the track closer to the viewer's eye level) I used Micro Engineering because of its fine spike detail.

[BR60103]

Peco make a rail joiner to join their code 100 to code 75. There is a plastic joiner, a metal strip (phosphor bronze?) and a plastic tie. The metal strip is put into the plastic joiner, then it is slid onto the rails. The plastic tie is cosmetic. The metal strip can be omitted if you need insulation.
You still need to shim the code 75 to match the height of the code 100.

I've still got some old HO toy track (tri-ang) that has about code 125 rail.