Just wondering, does code 100 rail have the same dimensions in both S and HO?
This question belongs in the model forum because it is a SCALE question.
And, because you are asking about scale, which code-of-rail signifies, the answer is no. With scales differing in real-world dimensions, the code of rail must vary commensurately. A code 100 rail in HO would not be as high, ties being excluded, as that in S or O. It would be a smaller rail.
bootin Just wondering, does code 100 rail have the same dimensions in both S and HO?
Bootin, welcome to the forum! The forum has many expert modelers who can answer just about any question you have, and no, it is not a stupid question.
York1 John
Rail "code" simply refers to the nominal height from the base to the head.
Code 100 rail is 100 thousandths of an inch. You can choose to use it in G scale, O scale, S HO or TT, even N scale where it will represent varying "weights" of real rail.
Some modelers in HO might use code 40, 55, 70, 83 or 100 to represent various sizes used in the real world. If you model the PRR main line in the NE Corridor you might want code 100 or if you model a siding on a branch line code 55 or even code 40 might be a better choice for appearance sake.
So, yes, code 100 is the same cross section in HO or S scale. It would simply represent a lighter rail in S than it would in HO.
This chart shows relative rail weights related to 1:87 —
http://www.proto87.com/Prototype_and_HO_rail_sizes.html
Or here:
https://mrr.trains.com/how-to/get-started/2010/01/model-railroad-track-codes-defined
In S scale, code 100 rail equates to 110 pound rail in the real world, a very common rail used for main-line railroads in the mid-late 20th Century.
Good Luck, Ed
Code 100 means the rail is .100" high - in other words, 1/10th of an inch. It's not a scale measure but a real-world measure.
However, be aware code only refers to the height of the rail, it has nothing to do with the width or the shape of the rail. So for example, in HO scale, Kato, Walthers, and Atlas code 83 rail are all the same height, but don't have the same exact outline - the Kato rail is narrower, closer to 'semi-scale' track, Walthers rail is a bit wider, Atlas wider still. So it's possible code 100 track designed for use in S scale might be different (like wider rail) than code 100 designed for HO.
There are no stupid questions. There are only those blankety blank stupid Kadee coupler springs which I can never find if they fall on the floor. But that is OT ....
A case can be made that the rail profile (and the slight rounding of the crown) could or should be a bit different for S scale uses of Code 100 rail versus O scale uses of Code 100 rail versus (Pennsylvania Railroad prototype) HO uses for Code 100 rail but I am not aware of any commerical model rail that is that finely rolled to a given scale thickness of web and base and so on.
The C&NW Historical Society published a book years ago by Gene Lewis, a retired civil engineer for the C&NW, showing the dozens and dozens and dozens of different rail profile outlines that the railroad had used or experimented with over the years, with various degrees of success or failure. Rail height and even rail weight are only a part of the equation. We modelers are pretty much satisfied with using rail height (Code "whatever") as a good practical surrogate for rail weight as well as all those many variants of profile and outline.
Dave Nelson
dknelsonThere are no stupid questions. There are only those blankety blank stupid Kadee coupler springs which I can never find if they fall on the floor.
Overmod dknelson There are no stupid questions. There are only those blankety blank stupid Kadee coupler springs which I can never find if they fall on the floor. It's not the springs' fault if you're not working inside a clear Baggie like you should. They are very small and have few if any identifiable neurons, so have to be excused for their stupidity.
dknelson There are no stupid questions. There are only those blankety blank stupid Kadee coupler springs which I can never find if they fall on the floor.
It's not the springs' fault if you're not working inside a clear Baggie like you should. They are very small and have few if any identifiable neurons, so have to be excused for their stupidity.
Using a baggie is sound advice for anything small, including structure parts, screws, etc.
OvermodIt's not the springs' fault if you're not working inside a clear Baggie like you should. They are very small and have few if any identifiable neurons, so have to be excused for their stupidity.
I disagree completely. It is their fault, and it makes me feel better to tell them so with a few adjectives to go along with the message.
gmpullmanSo, yes, code 100 is the same cross section in HO or S scale. It would simply represent a lighter rail in S than it would in HO.
Same cross section- not necessairly. While they all represent prototype T-rail, the actual cross section of the rail may vary depending on who manufactured it. However differences are slight so the different brands can be mixed and used in any scale.
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.
Lastspikemike York1 Overmod It's not the springs' fault if you're not working inside a clear Baggie like you should. They are very small and have few if any identifiable neurons, so have to be excused for their stupidity. I disagree completely. It is their fault, and it makes me feel better to tell them so with a few adjectives to go along with the message. I can't find baggies big enough... When you find one of those knuckle springs you feel as if you've stumbled across a four leaf clover. Of course the odds of finding them are in inverse proportion to the frequency of loss.
York1 Overmod It's not the springs' fault if you're not working inside a clear Baggie like you should. They are very small and have few if any identifiable neurons, so have to be excused for their stupidity. I disagree completely. It is their fault, and it makes me feel better to tell them so with a few adjectives to go along with the message.
Overmod It's not the springs' fault if you're not working inside a clear Baggie like you should. They are very small and have few if any identifiable neurons, so have to be excused for their stupidity.
I can't find baggies big enough...
When you find one of those knuckle springs you feel as if you've stumbled across a four leaf clover.
Of course the odds of finding them are in inverse proportion to the frequency of loss.