Rail Coding

[Anonymous]

I am going to start to design and will build this summer a around the room layout. I will be modeling the Rio Grande and was wondering what code rail I should use. I was thinking of going smaller than 100 which is what I have been doing. What looks more realistic? An of you out there modeling the Rio Grande? What code are you using? What company do you buy from? Thanks for the tips guys.

[wp8thsub]

Assuming you are talking HO scale, code 100 is way too big for anything the D&RGW used. Most of their mainline trackage could be realistically represented with Code 83. My favorite brand for its detail is Micro Engineering, but if you're newer to the scale track game you might like Atlas 83 better. Yard and secondary tracks are often laid with smaller rail than the mains, and code 70 can look good there.

Note that the biggest aesthetic problem with HO code 100 track lies in the typically unrealistic rail cross section and the poor tie/spike detail. Shinohara (also sold as Lambert) code 100 has nice rail and tie detail, plus a decent rail cross section. Even if you don't care about rail size, changing to closer-to-scale track is worth it just for the overall detail improvment.

[dinwitty]

Older equipment and models had deeper flanges and mostly only IHC still has these deeper flanges..ugh..

these are best on code 100, if you stick with RP25, you can go down to code 55.
Code 83 still works for the deeper flanges but I doubt theres any Rivarossi Rio Grande models...

[rrinker]

I'm using Code 83 exclusively - the OLD Rivarossi deep flanges don't work on it - my father in law ha ssome late 60's/early 70's Rivarossi GG1's that rattle over the track likek crazy. Somewhere in the early 70's, Rivarossi went to a slightly less oversize flange, still bigger than RP25 but not quite as bad as the older stuff. Those DO run fine on Code 83 track.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

I second Randy's experience on the Rivarossi flanges... They run like garbage on code 83 track.

I also have one AHM diesel from the 80's (I think) that has the same problem.

I have a Rivarossi steamer that I would love to be able to get running nice on my code 83... Is there any way to replace the drivers/wheels?

[Anonymous]

Sorry but the flange is the width of the flat part of the wheel?

Also I dont have many old locos so ill probally be good for that part.

[dinwitty]

I file down those flanges, let the engine run upside down and lightly apply a file or spinning dremel discwheel on the edge.

I recall some MR/RMC article someone made a special tool with correct rp25 contour and turned those deep wheels into correctness...

[Anonymous]

is it ok to use two different companies track if thier same code?

Also how do I join two different codes of track if I use 83 on the main lines and 70 for the sidings.

[wp8thsub]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Metallicarocks28

is it ok to use two different companies track if thier same code?

Yes, but be advised that different manufacturers use different cross sections. Micro Engineering is pretty close to scale, Atlas is much thicker, Shinohara is somewhere in between. Mixing and matching doesn't result in much visual distraction once the track is finished. There also can be slight differences in height of nominal code 83 rail, but a little filing at the joint will take care of that.

Rail joiners are a different matter. My favorites are Atlas N scale (code 80) joiners, which are smaller than their huge, long HO joiners. They will work on any brand of code 83. Although somewhat tight on Atlas 83, they should work with no problems. Micro Engineering joiners barely work on their own rail and don't like Atlas' thick rail web and base.

QUOTE: Also how do I join two different codes of track if I use 83 on the main lines and 70 for the sidings.

Transition joiners are available, but I usually make my own by installing a joiner half way onto the 83 rail, squashing the remaining half flat with pliers, then soldering the code 70 atop the flattened portion. It often helps to chamfer the bottom of the code 70 rail end to clear any excess joiner metal right at the end of the code 83 rail. Do this a few times and you'll get used to the process and should be able to get smooth operation across the transition. Note that the rail head of the code 70 will differ in width from the 83, so be sure to keep the running surfaces of the rail heads aligned when soldering. Also watch how close to the joint you spike the code 70 track to avoid introducing a too-quick vertical transition. You may want to shim the last inch or so of the 70 track with cardstock under the ties to guard against this problem.

[selector]

jon, the 'flange' is the sharp ridge on the inside edge of the wheel running surface (what you describe as the flat part') that keeps the wheels on the rails.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

jon, the 'flange' is the sharp ridge on the inside edge of the wheel running surface (what you describe as the flat part') that keeps the wheels on the rails.

Ok okay thanks