Seeking advice on track type

[rrinker]

 Painted and ballasted, it becomes much harder to tell that the rail is too high. I've seen well done N scale code 80, which is equivalent to something well north of 150 pound rail, that doesn;t immediately scream "N scale" because of the rail height. 

 These days, HO code 83 probably has the biggest selection of available pieces, and I see nothing wrong with using code 83 track for a prorotype that used 70 pound rail. You can get rail and in a few cases flex track and some turnouts in smaller sizes, but you may end up having to hand lay - if that's your thing then by all means use the smaller rail.

                                           --Randy

 

[DSchmitt]

http://www.proto87.com/Prototype_and_HO_rail_sizes.html

Code 70 approx 100 lb rail

Code 83 approx 132 lb rail

This site lists rail used by some prototype railroads    

http://www.icrr.net/rails.htm

 

[jjdamnit]

Hello all,

What scale are you modeling?

From the Kaddee website:

"The term Code 110 and Code 88 relates to the width of the wheels and has no relationship to track code.
Code 110 wheels are .110" wide and Code 88 are .088" wide.
Code 110 wheels are the common (or "Standard") width wheels and Code 88 are what is called "Semi-Scale" and are used when the modeler wants a more prototypical looking wheel width.
Actual HO-Scale prototypical wheel width would be around .067" wide and although they will run OK on the average track they will not go through common turnouts and crossings.
Code 88 (.088") is just about the minimum width of wheel that will run on most standard or common track if gauged correctly.
It really is a matter of appearances because there's very little operational differences between running Code 110 or Code 88 wheels.
Code 88 wheels look really good and are most noticeable on open frame cars like hoppers and tank cars. However, they also look great on boxcars, gondolas, and reefers but not quite as noticeable.
As mentioned above track code and wheel code have no relationship meaning Code 110 and Code 88 will run on most any code of track.
Track code is simply the measured height of the rail, code 100 is .100" tall, code 83 is .083" tall, code 70 is .070" tall, and so on.”
(Paragraph breaks and underscore added by poster for clarification)

That being said, code 100 rail would best represent the heavier of the rails while code 83 and 70 would represent the "lighter" rail stock.

This is only applicable to HO scale. Other scales will use the same "code"- -rail height- -but will visually appear differently compared to the rolling stock.

I use HO scale code 100 track so I can run any code of wheels.

There are "transition rail joiners" that can mate code 100 to 83 or vice-a-versa. You could also fabricate rail joiners from code 83 to 70 and even 55 for HO scale.

Hope this helps.

[Lonehawk]

Hi.  I'm looking for some advice on what type of track to use in my new layout.  I've read a number of posts about track ranging from "stick to your prototype" to, "if it looks good, do it."  I'm kind of middle of the road (right of way?) between these views.  Looking good is important, because, heck, if you don't like how it looks, you'll worry about that more than the running of the layout.  But I also like it to be "plausible".

I'm proto-lancing a mid-1930's era branch line railroad based on the Arcade and Attica in Western New York.  Sort of a "what if this railroad had been more successful" exercise.  The prototype uses 70 lb rail today, (which as I understand corresponds to code 70), and hauls fairly light traffic, typically less than 500 frieight cars plus seasonal excursions each year. Historical data on trackage is a bit hard to find.  

I'm thinking about doing my layout in code 83, and the traffic on my layout would be much higher than the prototype.  If it makes a difference, motive power would be either an 0-8-0, a Consolidation or a Mike, or some combination thereof.  I'm leaning toward Consolidation, which the ARA runs today.

So, is an upgrade to heavier rail, in this case from code 70 to 83 plausible?  Would it work with the time period?  Is that the sort of investment a railroad would make if the traffic were heavy enough? Maybe not in the 30's but perhaps in better years in the '20's?  For the record, I can make my track plan work in either size, so that's not a factor.

 

Thanks!