Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Stupid Question?????

2108 views
11 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 11,439 posts
Posted by dknelson on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:23 AM

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.

 

 
Yes. What I need is a Baggie so big I can get inside of it with the coupler and then I'll worry about the springs, being aware all the while that I have only so many seconds before the oxygen runs out....  
 
Dave Nelson
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018
  • 4,422 posts
Posted by DSchmitt on Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:07 PM

gmpullman
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.

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.

  • Member since
    February 2018
  • From: Flyover Country
  • 5,557 posts
Posted by York1 on Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:36 AM

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.

York1 John       

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • 2,360 posts
Posted by kasskaboose on Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:09 AM

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.

 

 

 Using a baggie is sound advice for anything small, including structure parts, screws, etc.

 
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:57 AM

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.

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 11,439 posts
Posted by dknelson on Tuesday, February 16, 2021 9:37 AM

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

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Tuesday, February 16, 2021 9:18 AM

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.

Stix
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 16,367 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Monday, February 15, 2021 12:32 PM

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

  • Member since
    February 2018
  • From: Flyover Country
  • 5,557 posts
Posted by York1 on Monday, February 15, 2021 12:09 PM

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       

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Monday, February 15, 2021 12:06 PM

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.

  • Member since
    January 2013
  • 3 posts
Stupid Question?????
Posted by bootin on Saturday, February 13, 2021 6:11 PM

Just wondering, does code 100 rail have the same dimensions in both S and HO?

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!