Hi all,
Guess I'm seeking advice/opinions from any others who may have wrestled with this:
My prototype used 119 lb. mainline rail. I'd like to appoximate the look of 119 lb. rail, but if I remember correctly, HO code 83 is appropriate for 136 lb. rail or thereabouts. So I guess I'm looking for opinions: Do you think Code 70 would look more appropriate for 119 lb. rail? Yet isn't Code 70 more akin to 100 lb. rail? Visually speaking, do you think the Code 70 would give a more accurate representation than Code 83?
I realize that it's ridiculous to try to find an EXACT HO scale match for 119 lb. rail. So I'm just looking for opinions on what may "look just right," regardless of the rail code.
Thanks!
Depending on the height of the rail, code 70 can approximate anywhere from 90# to 115# rail. Code 83 usually approximates 125# to 132# rail. I suppose Peco code 75 would be the 'best fit'. I would use code 83 because you get the best price/selection in flex track and turnouts. Of course you can hand lay code 75 rail as well!
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
jrbernier Depending on the height of the rail, code 70 can approximate anywhere from 90# to 115# rail. Code 83 usually approximates 125# to 132# rail. I suppose Peco code 75 would be the 'best fit'. I would use code 83 because you get the best price/selection in flex track and turnouts. Of course you can hand lay code 75 rail as well! Jim
Actually, the very best fit is Code 80 (.078 according to the table I just referenced.) Unfortunately, the only commercial Code 80 flex I am aware of is N scale.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Here's a chart http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRrailsizes.html or
http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp-15_1.html
119# is about the middle between code 70 and code 83
Given that our wheels are oversized in thickness and flange depth, the wheels will look better on code 83. And since sidings are frequently lighter than the main you could do 83 on the main and 70 on the sidings for contrast. Of course you could do code 70 and code 55.
As to which looks better - it's in the eye of the beholder.
Enjoy
Paul
Thanks for the responses.
I'm still considering hand-laying. That's not completely off the table. I even courted going with Proto 87, but I think that's out. Too many issues with six-axle diesels. Four-axle, no problem, but that center axle on six-axle units would need a fair amount of tweaking.
To address the oversize wheel issue, I'm planning on going with Code 88 wheels. Not as attractive (to me) as Proto 87, but perhaps the best compromise between appearance and reliability.
I think I'll be going with the track offered through Proto 87 stores (they have regular HO stuff, too). Hmm ... maybe Code 70 for the main and 55 for sidings could be the way to go. My layout concept is a very simple around-the-walls shelf ... essentially one town with passing siding and some industries. No complicated trackwork. About as simple as it gets.
mopac57 Thanks for the responses. I'm still considering hand-laying..... To address the oversize wheel issue, I'm planning on going with Code 88 wheels. Not as attractive (to me) as Proto 87, but perhaps the best compromise between appearance and reliability. I think I'll be going with the track offered through Proto 87 stores (they have regular HO stuff, too). Hmm ... maybe Code 70 for the main and 55 for sidings could be the way to go. My layout concept is a very simple around-the-walls shelf ... essentially one town with passing siding and some industries. No complicated trackwork. About as simple as it gets.
I'm still considering hand-laying.....
Which way to recommend also depends on your viewing angle. Model rail head tends to be a little to quite a bit wider than scale, depending on the manufacturer. The rail code only refers to the height, and has nothing to with the cross-section scaling. Rail height would be the key if you are truly viewing from eye level or very close to it. But from the usual helicopter view from which we view our layouts, rail head width would have more of a visual impact. Which is why over-height rail is so easily detected in low angle photos, but is much harder to discern in person, especially if the rail is weathered.
FWIW, Atlas typically has the widest rail head for a given rail code, and ME the narrowest. The others tend to be in between. And IIRC, the rail base for ME code 70 and code 83 is exactly the same (doesn't say anything about rail head but I suspect they could be the same, too), and code 55 is a little narrower.
Tie spacing, tie uniformity and coloring, rail weathering, tie plate size, ballast, roadbed grading, and even tie size are other visual elements that help separate main line from lesser quality track, and may be more important than rail size in making things look "right", again depending on viewing angle and distance. Central Valley tie strips have different size tie plates depending on whether you order the branch or the regular variety. I'm not sure if there are other differences between the 2 tie strips. I've not detected any differences in the ties, tie plates, or spike heads between ME HOn3 flex in code 55 and 70 - just the visually smaller rail. But there is a significant visual difference between the appearance of Atlas code 83 and ME code 70 in HO - and not just the rail.
Edited to include: You may already know this. My experience with code 88 wheels is that they "rattle" around in Atlas turnout frogs and other turnouts that use max NMRA flange width and/or signficant gauge widening on their track. The NMRA wheel/track studies have shown that tread width needs to be at least twice the flangeway width for proper support through the turnout. NMRA spec for flangeways run from 0.040" to 0.050". If gauged to the minimum spec, code 88 (and code 110) wheels run very well. But to get the minimum flangeway, track gauge must also be at minimum to keep the check gauge where it should be (and where the wheels are gauged). Very few commercial turnouts (including Fast Tracks) are set to these specs, with Atlas tending to be the most distant. That said, I'm using Atlas turnouts as stand-ins so I can run trains before I get the handlaid track in. And I'm gradually converting my standard gauge trucks to Kadee arch bars with code 88 wheel sets - despite the "rattle".
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
If you have a heckuva lot of energy you can always strip the rail from N-Scale Code 80 flex and handlay your right of way! That'll git'r'done!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet