7j43k Regarding the vast number of choices with Code 83. Yes, true. But. If you can design your railroad to use only: switch: #4,6,8, #4 wye, #6 3-way, #6 double-slip crossings at 30, 45, 60, 90 assorted HOn3 trackage You can use Shinohara Code 70. Do you NEED something else for YOUR layout? Ed
Regarding the vast number of choices with Code 83.
Yes, true.
But.
If you can design your railroad to use only:
switch: #4,6,8, #4 wye, #6 3-way, #6 double-slip
crossings at 30, 45, 60, 90
assorted HOn3 trackage
You can use Shinohara Code 70.
Do you NEED something else for YOUR layout?
Ed
Well, there won't be any narrow gauge, that much I know. By the time I'm modeling, the prototype had gone to standard gauge. I can probably get away with just those pieces, but a lot will depend on the final layout plan that I decide on.
- Adam
When all else fails, wing it!
I've read about this before, and I definitely plan to do it. Thanks for calling it out though, Hornblower. Based on what I'm seeing here, I'll probably do mostly code 83, with some 70 for sidings. I will buy some 55 though to play with and see how I feel about it and how it looks. I don't plan on showing this at all. It'll just be for me, my son, and whatever guests want to take a gander. So that, combined with what I'm hearing/reading makes me lean toward the 83/70 combo.
kasskaboose Mr B (or anyone else): How to easily transition between two different track codes?
Mr B (or anyone else): How to easily transition between two different track codes?
It's very easy.
You "spike" the thicker track down. You place the thinner track next to that, and shim it up with styrene until it matches. Then, they MATCH.
You don't actually HAVE to use some special rail joiner. If you do a good job of spiking, the rails will stay in alignment.
Is it better doing that over using the same code and different heights of cork roadbed?
That wouldn't change the "Code", which is what we're talking about here.
I would also recommend HO scale Code 83 due to the wide selection and pricing competition. I also highly recommend the use of Atlas N scale Code 80 rail joiners on the HO Code 83 track. These joiners are significantly smaller than HO joiners and nearly disappear when the rails are painted. As the fit is rather tight (some pre-sizing is usually needed), they hold HO scale track just as well as HO joiners. Pre-sizing is accomplished by sliding each joiner over a piece of Code 83 rail that has one end filed into a tapered shape. Wrap the other end of the piece of rail with tape to create a comfortable handle.
Hornblower
MisterBeasley If you're going to be particular about the track, you could use Code 70 for spurs and little-used branch lines.
If you're going to be particular about the track, you could use Code 70 for spurs and little-used branch lines.
Mr B (or anyone else): How to easily transition between two different track codes? Is it better doing that over using the same code and different heights of cork roadbed?
On my 1st layout I used ME code 83 throughout and plan on doing likewise. It appears that's what most use and offers the greatest availability.
As already mentioned, build what you like.
The one thing that most of the visitors notice about my track work is the wood ties in the areas that I have hand laid rail.
I'd go with Code 70 - it looks much better, especially for the era you're modeling; for transition era railroads up to the early/mid '50s, I favor code 70 with Code 55 for some yard and sidings. Ballast won't hide it if you know it's there - and doesn't hide that much even of you're unaware. If you were doing a PRR main drag, even in the '30s, Code 83 woud look OK - maybe not for yards, sidings and service tracks, but OK for the main. But the Pennsy laid some really heavy iron. Go with Code 70.
Hi,
I would like to reinforce the comments about "casual viewers" not having a clue about track size...... Viewers of my HO layouts over the years noticed the vehicles, the painted backdrop, and the usual scenes that people typically see in the real world (i.e. farms, loading docks, diners, etc.).
I've had more than a couple "knowledgeable" folks looking at my transition era layout and didn't have a clue about steam locos, much less track size and such.
As someone wrote, you are building the layout for you. Twer I were you, and 20 years younger, I would go with the code 83 and never look back.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Bayfield Transfer Railway Also, I know somebody who uses Code 83, Code 70, and Code 55 on his HO railroad, and he has to point it out to people because nobody ever notices.
Also, I know somebody who uses Code 83, Code 70, and Code 55 on his HO railroad, and he has to point it out to people because nobody ever notices.
Perhaps, but most of us build our layouts to satisfy and impress ourselves. Just saying...
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Graham Line Casual visitors aren't going to be clued in to the availability of different rail sizes. Even so, their brains are going to register the fact that some track is less hefty, and therefore, probably less important, than other segments. Some of these details that are not noticed on their own -- like fat framing in windows -- still contribute to the overall effect.
Casual visitors aren't going to be clued in to the availability of different rail sizes. Even so, their brains are going to register the fact that some track is less hefty, and therefore, probably less important, than other segments. Some of these details that are not noticed on their own -- like fat framing in windows -- still contribute to the overall effect.
Agreed, the more you cheat or fudge on things, the more it starts to add up as far as the appearance of the layout as a whole.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
The casual visitors to my layout would always notice the automobiles. I could have had steamers pulling a string of well cars and they would see nothing wrong, but autos all caught their eyes.
I built the first part of my layout with Code 100 and then switched to Code 83 for the rest. I really like the Code 83 much better for appearance. The ties are also larger in Code 100, at least the Atlas track, and the thinner ones look better. I find Code 83 easier to ballast, too, probably because the tie depth is lower.
I had a lot of very old Tyco cars left over from my teenage years. They were fine on Code 100, but I did notice that the old plastic pizza-cutter wheels would ride up on the ties in places instead of sitting firmly on the rails. Eventually I replaced all my plastic wheels with metal ones and solved that problem.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Go with Code 83; it has the widest availability of products, and is the only HO code where you can get Number 5 turnouts (which are a marvelous thing). As mentioned above, nobody is actually going to notice.Code 55 is 83 pound rail, but you'd have to make all your own switches.
joe323 Unless you are inviting a bunch of rivet counters over to your layout I would not get too obsessed with track code and the prototype. code 83 seems like a reasonable compromise.
Unless you are inviting a bunch of rivet counters over to your layout I would not get too obsessed with track code and the prototype. code 83 seems like a reasonable compromise.
I agree. No one that has seen my railroad has ever mentioned the size of the rail. Even where it transitions from one code to the other.
mobilman44 Hi, Certainly some good advice so far. One additional point I would like to make however. Working with code 100 (I prefer Atlas) is relatively easy. But of course it is bigger than some would prefer (although painting and ballasting minimize that aspect). Code 70 and more so 55 may be very realistic, but they can be difficult to solder, etc. So that leaves code 83 - a nice compromise in size, with components readily available from many sources.
Certainly some good advice so far. One additional point I would like to make however. Working with code 100 (I prefer Atlas) is relatively easy. But of course it is bigger than some would prefer (although painting and ballasting minimize that aspect). Code 70 and more so 55 may be very realistic, but they can be difficult to solder, etc.
So that leaves code 83 - a nice compromise in size, with components readily available from many sources.
This is what I'm thinking as well, given my research and what I'm seeing here. I'm not really worried about flanges, since the only equipment I will be running that is older than that 25 year mark, as mentioned by riogrande, would be a couple of gons, and I could easily swap the wheels out if needed. Most of what rolls here will be new or recently-made seconds. Like I said earlier, I'm not worried about counting rivets, but I don't want anything obviously out of size or toylike, if I can avoid it. My benchmark is "plausible". So given the parts availability, ease of use, and my own expansion plans (eventually), code 83 is looking like the best option, with maybe some 70 for sidings/yards.
DSchmittIn HO scale code 100 represents rail larger than used on the prototype except some sections of the Pennsylvania Railroad. (152 & 155 lb rail)
As modern locomotives and freight cars get heavier so does the rail on major main routes.. Short lines is facing to light of rail for today's heavier cars especially grain cars.
C100 fills the bill for this heavier main line trackage.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
rrinkerI've seen well done N scale code 80, which is equivalent to something well north of 150 pound rail, that doesn;t immediately scream "N scale" because of the rail height.
From what I have viewed over the past 40 years, code 80 N scale track, ballasted or not, painted or not, looks "gross" and toylike. Of course as they say, YMMV, but if I were to switch to N scale, I would not use code 80 in visible areas - only staging. To me, code 80 track indeed screams N-scale very loudly. I suppose it's a matter of ones level of tolerance; everyone has to decide for themself but for me, painting and ballasting it doesn't hide it's overscale appearance; painting/ballasting/weathering camouflages HO code 100 better, relatively speaking.
The wheels on the cars and locomotives, to be operated, should also be considered when chosing rail code. Code 83 works with virtually all, but code 70 has problems with some (mostly older equipment) due to wheel flange depth. Wheels are generally easy to change on cars, but difficult to change on locomotives.
The issue above is largely moot these days, but one one happens to have ver old HO rolling stock with "pizza cutter" flanges, then you could possibly be limited from using the smaller code tracks such as code 70 or maybe code 83. The vast majority of HO products made in the past 25 years should not have any issues with common HO track in the major code 70/83/100 track.
Unless you are inviting a bunch of rivet counters over to your layout I would not get too obsessed with track code and the prototype. code 83 seems like a reasonable compromis.
Joe Staten Island West
A lot would depend on the motive power and rolling stock that you already have. Older Rivarossi steam locomotives had deep flanges on their wheelsets. Replacing them could be a problem. If so, I'd run code 100 track. If your equipment has NMRA RP-25 profile wheelsets, then you should be able to run codes 83, 70 and 55 without any problems.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
I would definitely use Code 70. I might even use a bit of Code 55 for some industrial trackage.
I wouldn't let the "deep flange" problem get in the way. Anything you have that has deep flanges should either be tossed or fixed.
If Shinohara track suits you, they make a lot of things, including switches in 4,6,8 and even a double slip switch.
83 is just too big for the railroad you want to make.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
I laid code 100 track on my layout mostly because I had access to a nice bunch of used code 100 flex track for free. It's a little big, but after I brush painted the rails rust brown they looked much smaller. I believe code 83 is the smallest rail in HO for which ready made flex track and turnouts are available. Paint the rails, and it will look just fine.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
Wow. Thanks for all the great information. jjdamnit, your post was particularly informative, as was DSchmitt's.I am modeling in HO (sorry for forgetting that, and also I think I put this in the wrong section, but it's here now), so it looks like I'll be going code 83 (thanks for your point on N-scale though, rrinker. The same idea applies to HO, I'm sure). I've seen both first hand on layouts, and I do like the look of the smaller rail. And as I've seen elsewhere and been reminded here, a good job of ballasting and weathering can work wonders.
jjdamnitThat being said, code 100 rail would best represent the heavier of the rails while code 83 and 70 would represent the "lighter" rail stock.
In HO scale code 100 represents rail larger than used on the propotype except some sections of the Pennsylvania Railroad. (152 & 155 lb rail)
Code 83 (132 Lb) is considered by about right, by many modelers, for most main line HO scale applications.
The link I posted earlier shows that historically the largest rail on many railroads was about 100 lb Code 70 in HO, some 110 lb code 75 in HO
rrinker's comment about painting a ballasting is correct.
Chart comparing prototype rail weight to midel rail height in various scales
http://wpporter.worthygems.com/railweight.php