I have addressed this question before in our forums, but please forgive I need to ask one more question. I am going to purchase the trackage for my daughter's layout that I am going to give to her or to her children. We are talking about 50 to 70 years into the future. Most of us will be dead.
With this being said if my daughter or grandchildren had to replace Code 100 trackage within the next 50 years(either turnouts or flex track), could they find Code 100 flextrack or tunrouts within the next 70 years with no problem. I am asking this question because the industry push seems to me to be moving toward no more code 100. The parallel could be drawn from the industry in the same manner as the push away from DC to DCC. I think the industry eventually will push for no more code 100. Most of us on these forums will be dead and will not need Code 100 for the depth of flanges issues to run steam power.
Will Code 100 track compoments be around within the next 50 to 70 years?
My Santa Fe contains mostly code 100 for mainline applications simply because the early parts were started in late 1970's into early 80's and code 100 was king. I do have some 83 and some 70 on the layout, but I am not going to rip out and replace all the code 100.
That said, if I were starting a new layout today, it would use code 83 for mains and 70 and 55 for yards and sidings. So I suspect code 100 will be harder and harder to find in the next 10 years.
Bob
My teenage layout, built in the 1960s, was Code 100. Because I have a lot of old rolling stock, I thought it best to stick to Code 100 for my current layout. Now, I wish I'd gone with Code 83 instead, because it looks better.
Remember, though, that most track back then was brass, not nickel-silver. So, while Code 100 has barely changed in shape and availability, it has changed a lot in materials used. I still have some pieces of fiber-tie brass flex track around.
There's no reason you could not add to a Code 100 layout with Code 83 track, or any other, for that matter. You need to provide appropriate transitions, and it would look weird if you were indiscriminantly using different rail weights, but if your layout needs an addition in 2059, it could be done in Code 83 and the trains would still run just fine.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
wcu boy With this being said if my daughter or grandchildren had to replace Code 100 trackage within the next 50 years(either turnouts or flex track), could they find Code 100 flextrack or tunrouts within the next 70 years with no problem.
With this being said if my daughter or grandchildren had to replace Code 100 trackage within the next 50 years(either turnouts or flex track), could they find Code 100 flextrack or tunrouts within the next 70 years with no problem.
Let me construct several slightly different scenarios for you to answer.
#1 Somebody in your family suddenly finds a Lionel Santa Fe F3 top of the line passenger set from the 1950s in their attic, and realizes it was supposed to go to you. 5 boxes, each at least 2ft x 2ft x 2ft arrive on your doorstep. Included is the original set in its original set box, all in great condition. The other boxes are filled with additional Lionel track, trains, and accessories from the 1950s era. Everything you need for a nice Lionel layout is there. But in the meantime, you have fallen in love with HOn3 Colorado narrow gauge, and have taken over the basement with a double deck HOn3 layout, accurately representing some Colorado scenes, complete with Blackstone, PSC, and repowered/regeared brass locos. There is no room to set up the Lionel without ripping up some of your HOn3.
#2 You kept the original HO trains your father had in the 1950s. Included are some Varney and Mantua locos he built from kits, some metal Athearn cars, as well as some Silver Streak and Central Valley assembled kits. Some are in better condition than others. Some have better workmanship and paint jobs than others. Most have Mantua, dummy, or Baker couplers. Nothing has been upgraded since the 1950s. In the meantime, you have built a fine HO layout using the latest Atlas, Stewart, and Kato locomotives, some with sound. Your rolling stock is top notch, featuring Accu-Craft, Bowser, P2K, Rapido, and the like - nicely weathered, all with metal wheels and Kadee scale head couplers. Your layout is all DCC.
#3 Your daughter decides to build a layout 5 years from now with the track you gave her today. It's a good layout, and she thoroughly enjoys the train gifts you have given her. However, after 5 years of enjoying the layout, she has to move. The track just won't come up without significant damage because she used too much/wrong kind of glue. Tearfully, she packs the trains for the move, wondering what you are going to think/say when you find out.
Is that Rivarossi steam that important to you/her/your grandchildren? Will it be in 50 years? Will it run OK on code 83 track that doesn't have as large a "spike head" as Atlas code 83 does? Is turning down the flanges an option, or do the locomotives have to remain in original condition? If they need to remain original, are you laying in other critical spare parts in addition to the code 100 track?
I agree that HO code 100 track will likely no longer be manufactured in a few more years. But I don't think it will disappear totally from the market, either. There will always be some available on eBay or its future equivalent and other outlets, just like Super O track and post-war Lionel transformers are today. And if there is enough demand and/or the price gets driven high enough, replicas will be manufactured, just like has happened to 3 rail O and Standard Gauge parts and items.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I maybe don't understand the question...OK I understand the part about code 100, will it be available in the future etc....but I'm not clear what your plans are. Are you going to put together a "train set" to be stored away until it's someday given to your child or grandchild, or are you planning on building a layout for your daughter that she can enjoy and pass on to her kids, or ??
In any case, track is basically expendable. I moved in 2006 and I didn't try to save the track from my old layout, except for a few turnouts that were still in the boxes. Switch machines and such can be removed and reused, as can buildings and trees and cars, but track and scenery pretty much are dumpster bait.
If you're going to build a layout now for your daughter, I would go with Kato code 83 Unitrack. After 20 years of fiddling with flextrack and roadbed, I'm using it on my new layout and I love it!! You can build the layout in such a way that the track could be removed (i.e. don't glue it down) if needed...like if a switch goes bad, you could just remove it and slap in a new one.
If you're going to put something together to box up and save...kind of like a model railroad 'hope chest'...I would advise not doing a train set type thing but maybe invest in something that will accrue in value like say some brass locomotives. The odds of a layout running or being built in 2060 using track from 2009 isn't very high. However, there's no reason a good running HO brass engine, with factory paint and sound, couldn't still be running great. Your great-grandson might become a model railroader and have his own layout (modelling the 2050's transition era from diesel to atomic fusion) and really enjoy taking out great grampa's old engine and running it on the layout while everyone looks on fondly and says "Dad (Grandpa, Great-Grandpa) sure loved the (UP, BN, Rio Grande, whatever) while the engine brings back memories.
The basic question is-in everyone's best educational guess, how much longer into the future will Code 100 track be with us? That is all I desire to know.
1) Things in the future will always change my friend. Much like steam to diesel, Perhaps 70 years in the future {2079} your grandkids/future great grandkids will only want the {"new-fangled"} mag-lev trains they are developing now and "installed in real life" around the world in "good old days of the 2020's". Mag-levs will run on their own new form of track, rendering code 100 and all other current HO codes all useless.
2) I had O, O27 trains as a kid and always wanted HO. When the FIL passed on old European Marklin trains from the 60's, I eagerly bought only code 100 {without looking at the trains passed on first} for my new HO scale adventures, thinking about all I had read about the deep flange issues of older HO trains. Then I found out they are not compatible with our train sets and track anyway. I now kinda wish I hadn't bought Code 100. Anything today may not be compatible with anything 70 years from now.
3) You are right that DCC may push DC out in the future. However, 70 years from now DCC may even be old hat as some better computerized air radio fusion or fision reaction controlled something or other thingamagig may take over with smoother, better,and easier operation than today's DCC.
4) You daughter/grandkids/great grandkids may not care for trains at all.
5) If your father bought a car 70 years ago with the idea of passing it on to future generations {you}, would you still want to drive it to work as your daily driver now?
6) 70 years In the future there really may be "flying cars" or Star Trek style "transporters" for everyone with no need for trains. { Train? what's a train great grandpa?}
7) You are right that 70 years from now most of us will be dead. But so may be this planet if we don't stop killing it now, and model trains may not matter to anyone at all. Only food and shelter from sweltering sun may be their concerns.
In short, buy what you will enjoy now,and stop worrying about passing things on.
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
Code 100 railhead height actually exist protypically on heavy duty mainlines. Especially those with high speed rail transit. So I doubt it will seriously it will go away.
That being said:
1. I seriously seriously doubt that the engines will last nearly as long
2. I seriously seriously doubt that our hobby will survive another generation or two. So no code will survive. Fun hobbies for kids like MRR are going the way of horse and buggy with things like video games and computers. :-(
If you put a kid in front of a railroad, their eyes light up and they are entertained for hours. Give the kid a choice between a MRR kit and a video game, the game always wins.
We are a dieing art form. Such a travisty to. Today's kids don't take pride or enjoyment in making something. Why? Because it takes effort and time.
It's instatanious reward and satisfaction versus earned reward. (The later being more powerful in my opinion)
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
wcu boy The basic question is-in everyone's best educational guess, how much longer into the future will Code 100 track be with us? That is all I desire to know.
that should have been your original question then, without all the side issues so we would know you were asking a direct question. Usually the shortest route between two points is................................?
How many can recall that Code 70 will kill C100 boast of the late 60s?
Then there was that cry of MT coupler will bring death to the Rapido coupler..
Sorry folks but,some things never change and some of these "new" modeling techniques isn't all that new..They're just rehash modeling techniques.
IF the hobby survives the next 70 years I suspect we will have all new track-like C55 and C40 as the norm.
The new question will be: You mean to say modelers actually use C83/100 years ago? Unbelievable!!!
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
In the world of model airplanes, have gas engines and radio control replaced rubber band drives yet?
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
My local hobby shop assures me that code 100 is far more reliable than 83, these people have been in the business for 50+ years, so I would say they are experts. According to them, code 83 and 70 tend to result in far more derailments.
I don't know much about code 70, I haven't seen any up close, but does rail height really matter all that much? It seems to me its more the tie spacing thats the issue, 83 looks more realistic than 100 in my opinion, but I have been told with a little weathering and ballasting, you can't tell the difference between the two.
I want to model the PRR in the 30's and 40's, I would like to try code 83, because of the tie spacing, but I don't want my larger steamers to derail.
It would be really helpful if perhaps someone could post some pics of code 100 on a layout, vs 83, or even 70, as to display the differences.
People have to keep in mind too that there are some excellent Hi-rail layouts with amazingly detailed locomotives and scenery, you don't even notice the third rail, is track really that important? It seems that engine detail and surrounding scenery distracts the eyes from the track in the first place.
I don't know though, I'll never resolve this issue until I try it.
Most likely code 100 HO track will still be made by Atlas. Certainly code 100 rail will be made since it works well for S and O scales.
The more interesting question is what the distribution across Scales will be. Will HO still be the most popular? Will any scale dominate like HO does now?
Enjoy
Paul
The intent of my comments were that I was desiring to pass the hobby along to my daughter or her grandchildren.. I fully realize that " the model railroading bug" may not bite my grandchild, but I do want to make the effort to pass the gift along. If we all are going to be this dying breed then I at least want to try to attempt "a winning touchdown pass into the future model railroading end zone." I want to make the "the old college try." I believe it is worth it.
I've been using Code 100 since the late 'fifties, when I started seriously modeling in HO. I've done 3 things over the years:
1: Switched from brass to nickel silver flex-track.
2: Gone from Atlas Snap-turnouts to Sinohara and Peco.
3: Learned how to paint and ballast Code 100 so it looks more realistic.
The height and thickness bothers me not at all. It's sturdy and if laid well (like any track) is reliatively derail-proof. And the stuff lasts forever. AND in the future, since prototype railroads are laying heavier rail on their own mainlines, it just COULD become the modeling standard again, as 'to scale' model railroaders start looking at their code 55, 70 and 83 rail and say to themselves--"OOPS, my rail is too light!".
It could happen, you know.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Depending on how much the layout is operated, you might wear down the rails in such a long time.
I recall a note from Atlas after a period of time they might phase out Code 100, for now prices for Code 83 is higher for some certain financial reasons, but after whatever that is kicks out Code 83 products may drop in price. I doubt Code 100 will really dissappear from the market, as long as there are Train sets made for newcomers in the hobby. But the trend has moved from the more toyish models to better quality.
You will probably have to watch the market, however this hobby is dynamic and being involved in the hobby is fun and any current layout might wind up dismantled for something better. Don't worry, make your gift layout now and go for it and don't worry about the future, if they catch hold of this great hobby, they will push their interest and do the fun thing and enjoy the hobby like we all do.
rjake4454My local hobby shop assures me that code 100 is far more reliable than 83, these people have been in the business for 50+ years, so I would say they are experts. According to them, code 83 and 70 tend to result in far more derailments. I want to model the PRR in the 30's and 40's, I would like to try code 83, because of the tie spacing, but I don't want my larger steamers to derail. It would be really helpful if perhaps someone could post some pics of code 100 on a layout, vs 83, or even 70, as to display the differences. People have to keep in mind too that there are some excellent Hi-rail layouts with amazingly detailed locomotives and scenery, you don't even notice the third rail, is track really that important? It seems that engine detail and surrounding scenery distracts the eyes from the track in the first place. I don't know though, I'll never resolve this issue until I try it.
I'm from the camp that track is a model, too. And such garbage gets my dander up. Would you accept the same excuses you listed for incorrect, oversize, and/or missing details on a locomotive? How many have beefed about the bodies being too wide on early Athearn GP diesels to accommodate the large motors? Yet turn around and say you can't tell the difference if it's properly weathered? Or spreading the lie that making the hoods true scale width will cause the smaller motors to burn out?
Track problems that cause derailments are not caused or solved by changing the code of the rail. The only advantage to the larger rail codes is extra rigidity when inadequate support is provided to the track. Decently supported code 40 track will cause no more derailments than its code 100 cousin in HO. Will code 40 rail be more likely to kink when curving the flex track? Yes. And code 100 track is much more likely to kink when curving it than the code 250 Atlas 3 rail O gauge track. But once it is properly laid, the code of the rail makes no difference to the operation, just the appearance of the track. Proper track gauge, and alignment of the rail joints in all 3 axes is what prevents derailments. Decent vertical support of the track via the roadbed prevents the track from having dips and humps in the vertical plane.
My recommendation is to use the rail code, tie size, tie spacing, and details that best match your chosen prototype practices. Then exercise some reasonable care in laying the track to get rid of all kinks, dips, humps, and misalignments.
rant over
You make some good points, but where can I find the info regarding rail code that is relevant to the PRR of the 30s/40s?
Where did you start out in finding out information about prototypical rail codes? Most people at my hobby shop don't ever go below code 100...
The problem is too that I am a beginner in this hobby so I tend to lay my track very poorly despite hours of effort. I tack my code 100 down with nails, and I do a bad job at that, but again, where I come from, that seems to be the only method discussed. The hobby shop owners tell me to stay away from 83 and completely frown upon 70, even going as far to make jokes about 70 and 55 (I think thats what it is) saying that you need spectacles to see those pieces of string. People there tend to shrug their shoulders at this code stuff saying it doesn't matter, but again, that seems to be their attitude towards anything brass as well, saying its far too expensive and that it takes away the fun from the hobby.
rjake4454You make some good points, but where can I find the info regarding rail code that is relevant to the PRR of the 30s/40s? Where did you start out in finding out information about prototypical rail codes? Most people at my hobby shop don't ever go below code 100... The problem is too that I am a beginner in this hobby so I tend to lay my track very poorly despite hours of effort. I tack my code 100 down with nails, and I do a bad job at that, but again, where I come from, that seems to be the only method discussed. The hobby shop owners tell me to stay away from 83 and completely frown upon 70, even going as far to make jokes about 70 and 55 (I think thats what it is) saying that you need spectacles to see those pieces of string. People there tend to shrug their shoulders at this code stuff saying it doesn't matter, but again, that seems to be their attitude towards anything brass as well, saying its far too expensive and that it takes away the fun from the hobby.
RJake
Some comments. I have been where you are. I went from Atlas code 100 brass Snap Track and flex track (poorly laid for the most part) as a teenager on the layouts my Dad and I built to handlaid code 70 nickel silver for my first layout away from home. I went the handlaid route because I couldn't afford anything else, and I liked how much better the code 70 and handlaid track looked in the pages of Model Railroader.
Hand laying derailment-free code 70 wasn't nearly as difficult as I was afraid it was. I found I just had to be willing to re-spike certain places until the track was spot on. I think twice on my 4x8 (later became 4x6) I had to remove and replace a couple of ties because they had too many spike holes. Going to code 70 in those days was more of a sacrifice than it is now because a lot of the lower end locomotives and rolling stock (AHM, forerunner of IHC is a particular example) that I could afford had flanges that were too deep for code 70 rail.
For the record, in HO approximate prototype rail size equivalents:
Most modern main lines since the 1950s use 132lb rail. 100-120lb rail (rail is measured in weight per yard) is commonly used in yards and branch line track. Seldom used freight spurs might be as light as 85lbs. Prior to World War 2, rail weights tended to be lighter. And prior to 1900, 85lbs was heavy main line rail. 60 or 65lb rail was commonly used initially by class I railroads (and later upgraded), and almost always by short lines in the 19th Century. The Pennsylvania RR had some special 152 lb rail made in the mid-20th Century for specific high traffic areas.Using over-size rail to avoid the effort of getting your trackwork right is like accepting thick guitar strings for handrails or cast on grab irons to avoid handling damage of your rolling stock. And even then, there are no guarantees the extra rigidity of code 100 is actually going to prevent any derailments.
To me, laying good, derailment-free track requires I do the following:
If I were in your shoes, I would consider finding myself a different LHS. I would look for an LHS where the hobby goals of those who hang around are fairly similar to yours. Model railroading is a personal hobby. What are acceptable compromises in realism and prototype fidelity to some are unacceptable to others. We each eventually come to our accommodation as to what we will accept, and what we will really strive to do the best we can at. I wonder what those guys would say about those who hand lay dual guage track in N scale with code 30 "rail".In my town, there are 2 LHS. One is focused on the craftsman and model builders. He carries a decent range of HOn3, craftsmen kits, scratch supplies, and stocks brass on consignment. He also charges full retail. The other LHS offers some discounts and focuses on RTR, including Marklin. Interesting, the 1st shop only stocks HO Atlas code 83 track - no code 100 at all. The second LHS has only code 100 and no code 83. Neither actually admits the other LHS exists.
Unfortunately, the universal human tendency to disparage those who choose differently is just as prevalent in this hobby as in other aspects of life. I was guilty of that myself in my rant about those who look down on those of us who seek more realistic track. I guess what struck my nerve was the false justification for their choice of more derailments with smaller rail.
Anyway, whatever you choose for track, feel free to ask questions and seek advice about how to make your track derailment-free. To me, nothing takes away from the hobby faster than trains that won't stay on the track.
yours in training
rjake4454 You make some good points, but where can I find the info regarding rail code that is relevant to the PRR of the 30s/40s? Where did you start out in finding out information about prototypical rail codes? Most people at my hobby shop don't ever go below code 100... The problem is too that I am a beginner in this hobby so I tend to lay my track very poorly despite hours of effort. I tack my code 100 down with nails, and I do a bad job at that, but again, where I come from, that seems to be the only method discussed. The hobby shop owners tell me to stay away from 83 and completely frown upon 70, even going as far to make jokes about 70 and 55 (I think thats what it is) saying that you need spectacles to see those pieces of string. People there tend to shrug their shoulders at this code stuff saying it doesn't matter, but again, that seems to be their attitude towards anything brass as well, saying its far too expensive and that it takes away the fun from the hobby.
Do the guys in your hobby shop still wear skins (a' la Fred Flintstone) or have they graduated to togas?
I recall going to a hobby shop where the resident guru was supposed to be very knowledgeable about all things railroad. Turned out, he hadn't had an original thought since sometime before the advent of the four wheel trailing truck. When I tried to get information about NYC diesels (in a shop only a short distance from the NYC main line) he looked at me as if I had just crawled out from under a rock...
Good tracklaying, in any scale from 1:1 to darn near invisible starts with a good, solid subgrade, then proceeds upward to equally solid, accurately shaped (all three dimensions) roadbed. Track should be fastened in a way that doesn't deform the ties and rails or put dimples or waves in the roadbed. Track nails, if used, should be seated on the ties, not pounded into them with a full-scale track maul. By pre-curving flex track BEFORE anchoring it, you minimize the stress that has to be absorbed by the fastening system. (I, personally, use latex caulk as a track and roadbed adhesive. Track nails are used to position the flex track, but are not driven home and can be removed once the caulk sets.)
The relationship between model rail (code ###) and prototype rail is determined by dividing the prototype rail height by the scale ratio (which is 1:87.1) after consulting a table with appropriate dimensional data for the various prototype rail weights, such as this:
http://www.akrailroad.com/tee_rail_data.html
Click on CATALOG, then RAIL AND JOINT BARS, then dimensions.
While the PRR did use 155#/yd rail (on the Horseshoe Curve, in limited amounts) most of the main line track was somewhat less hefty, while secondary track was often laid with 100#/yd rail. Industry sidings could be even lighter - I found 60#/yd rail on a siding serving a lumber yard while railfanning half a century ago. (Most of the NYC steam roster was embargoed from that siding!)
As for relationships, in HO scale:
Hope this is helpful.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Hi!
With all due respect, buy the track and ENJOY!!!
If - and its a huge "if" - your beneficiaries are interested in model railroading in the far future, they will surely not want to use old HO track. Remember, it will probably go through a number of layouts, and not be in that great of shape in years to come. I just dismantled a 15 year old HO layout built with new Atlas code 100 flex track. I am now rebuilding a new layout, and trying to recycle the old track. Much of it will be reused, but I am dealing with ballast and cork and other scenery stuck to it, plus the soldered feeds, plus the soldered track joints. Out of 300 feet, I will probably reuse 150 or so.
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
tomikawaTT rjake4454 You make some good points, but where can I find the info regarding rail code that is relevant to the PRR of the 30s/40s? Where did you start out in finding out information about prototypical rail codes? Most people at my hobby shop don't ever go below code 100... The problem is too that I am a beginner in this hobby so I tend to lay my track very poorly despite hours of effort. I tack my code 100 down with nails, and I do a bad job at that, but again, where I come from, that seems to be the only method discussed. The hobby shop owners tell me to stay away from 83 and completely frown upon 70, even going as far to make jokes about 70 and 55 (I think thats what it is) saying that you need spectacles to see those pieces of string. People there tend to shrug their shoulders at this code stuff saying it doesn't matter, but again, that seems to be their attitude towards anything brass as well, saying its far too expensive and that it takes away the fun from the hobby. Do the guys in your hobby shop still wear skins (a' la Fred Flintstone) or have they graduated to togas? I recall going to a hobby shop where the resident guru was supposed to be very knowledgeable about all things railroad. Turned out, he hadn't had an original thought since sometime before the advent of the four wheel trailing truck. When I tried to get information about NYC diesels (in a shop only a short distance from the NYC main line) he looked at me as if I had just crawled out from under a rock... Good tracklaying, in any scale from 1:1 to darn near invisible starts with a good, solid subgrade, then proceeds upward to equally solid, accurately shaped (all three dimensions) roadbed. Track should be fastened in a way that doesn't deform the ties and rails or put dimples or waves in the roadbed. Track nails, if used, should be seated on the ties, not pounded into them with a full-scale track maul. By pre-curving flex track BEFORE anchoring it, you minimize the stress that has to be absorbed by the fastening system. (I, personally, use latex caulk as a track and roadbed adhesive. Track nails are used to position the flex track, but are not driven home and can be removed once the caulk sets.) The relationship between model rail (code ###) and prototype rail is determined by dividing the prototype rail height by the scale ratio (which is 1:87.1) after consulting a table with appropriate dimensional data for the various prototype rail weights, such as this: http://www.akrailroad.com/tee_rail_data.html Click on CATALOG, then RAIL AND JOINT BARS, then dimensions. While the PRR did use 155#/yd rail (on the Horseshoe Curve, in limited amounts) most of the main line track was somewhat less hefty, while secondary track was often laid with 100#/yd rail. Industry sidings could be even lighter - I found 60#/yd rail on a siding serving a lumber yard while railfanning half a century ago. (Most of the NYC steam roster was embargoed from that siding!) As for relationships, in HO scale: PRR 155#/yd equals code 92 (.092 inch height.) Code 100 is oversize! PRR mainline equals code 80 - 84. Code 80 or Code 83 are both suitable. 100#/yd - several possible heights, code 70 being slightly oversize for the tallest. 75#/yd - again several heights, code 55 being a reasonable approximation. Code 40 is too small for any post-Civil War standard gauge application - equivalent to 35/40#/yd Hope this is helpful. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Extremely helpful! Thank you!
I would question whether code 70 and code 83 really result in more derailments than code 100. If you have a lot of pre-1985 equipment with huge flanges, I guess it might. If you have newer cars with smaller flanges it shouldn't. I've used code 83 for 20 years and never noticed any unusual problems with derailments or any excessive wear on the rail. If you have a club or display layout where trains are running all the time or something it might be an issue, but I doubt the average modeller actually wears down track where it has to be replaced??
As far as passing the hobby along, it's hard to say what is the best way to interest someone. My grandson was brought downstairs to watch my HO layout a few times and didn't seem to care too much. Same with train videos playing on the TV in the frontroom. Then last fall, just before his second birthday, my wife took him down to see UP 3985 when it was here in St.Paul. (I had thought about bringing him down but she beat me too it!) From that point on he's been a train nut, as soon as he gets in the frontroom he grabs the remote and announces "WE WATCH TRAINS GRANDPA !!".
It would be great if that sticks with him, but unfortunately some kids who are into trains find that it's not "cool" (or whatever the current term is) as a teenager and drift away from it. Some will come back as adults, some won't. I don't know if there's much anyone can do except let them know you're there to help if they become interested.