HO, Track differences

[Anonymous]

I am getting to a point of needing to buy some bulk flex track, I am wondering... since I am having a hard time finding the differences explained online, whats the differences in the track.. and is there a better grade of HO flex track, than the other?

[joeyegarner]

There are different codes, Standard is code 100 there are a few others that are Code 83 and code 70 and I think thier is a code 55??. With lower numbers, The lower the number the smaller(shorter and more narrow) the rail, this is a general explanation some others here can offer you some more insight. Help me out guys.

[grandeman]

Basically, the two main types are Code 100 and the much more prototypical Code 83. Code 83 is a "fine scale" track that looks very realistic in rail height and tie detail. Atlas is a good brand that's priced right. There are other companies that sell flex track but since I use Atlas only, I won't comment on them.

[Anonymous]

Okay, that makes sence...

How about power wise.. Would either of the different HO tracks hold a better power stream than the others.. or would there not be much of any noticable difference.

I am uncertain I will be able to go with a DCC setup right off, so I will probly need to wire up for straight DC for awhile.. and I have a fairly large amount of track span.

Thanks.

[trainboyH16-44]

the number refers to how big the rail is, code 100= .100", code 83= .83", and so on. Code 100 is bigger than most of today's rail, and code 70 is about right for the transition-modern eras.
Matthew

[nbrodar]

I use Atlas code 100. It's readily avalable, and inexpensive. When painted and ballasted it doesn't look too oversize. Other more expensive brands (like Microengineering) have fully detailed ties and come in a greater range of sizes.

Neither holds power better then the other. Best bet, especially for DCC is to run power busses under the track.

Nick

[ereimer]

i don't think you'd see a noticable difference in the conductivity of different size HO rail . the rail itself , and the metal joiners used to hold it together aren't a particularly good combination for delivering power from one end of a layout to another . current thinking (pun!) is that running a pair of 12 to 14 guage (buss) wires under your layout and then running feeders of 20 to 22 guage wire soldered to the track every 4 to 6 feet will deliver the maximum power to the tracks , up to a distance around 30+ feet . if you're running DC and only running 1 engine at a time this is all you'll need , and converting to DCC will only require swapping the DC controller (throttle) for the DCC command station (and installing decoders in locos) . to run more than one engine with DC you need to break the layout into blocks and use switches and additional DC controllers to select which DC controller has control of the block your engine is in . it gets complicated , going DCC from the start with a new layout is a much better idea , it's quite possible the amount you'll save not buying switches , additional controllers and wire on a large layout will be greater than the price of a DCC starter system .

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: posted by ereimer

it's quite possible the amount you'll save not buying switches , additional controllers and wire on a large layout will be greater than the price of a DCC starter system .

That's a very good point.

I wasn't asking about the tracks holding better/worse conduency from lack of electrical knowledge, I was just curious if anyone had noticed any differences, just for info in general.

Funny how even though you know darn well that wiring a large DC system requires a lot of wire, and switches.. not to mention extra carpentry for the panels and all that.. you tend to still be ignorant to the thought that its a cheaper route! <--- another pun! *

Thanks for that little piece ereimer.

I will not make the mistake of wiring a large DC layout with intentions on converting it. It will only delay the conversion funds farther [:)]

[trainboyH16-44]

And then there is the money you spent on the DC stuff that will be useless then....
Matthew

[Jetrock]

Nickel-silver track is an okay conductor but it isn't nearly as good as copper, which is why running multiple feeders or a bus wire and supplying power every frew feet is a really good idea. The difference in track is mostly aesthetic.

Personally I don't mind Code 100, with paint and ballast it looks just fine to me, since it's only .017" taller (in HO scale, about 1.7 inches) and it works better for in-street track, but Code 83 does tend to have nicer detail on the ties. Some even use Code 70 (.070") but that often involves a lot of fine-scale work, special wheelsets with flanges that are very narrow, etcetera.

The best way to guarantee good electrical conductivity is work on your part--taking care to solder electrical feeders carefully, don't get paint in the points of your switches, etcetera. The best way to visually "shrink" the size of your track is to paint it.

[cacole]

And contrary to trainboyH16-44's comment, your "DC stuff" can still be used with DCC.

Engines can have decoders installed for as little as $15 each. Turnouts and building lights can still use DC or AC from an old power pack. Even if you want to have DCC controlled turnouts, you must still provide a DC or AC power source to the stationary decoder(s), which can be from an old power pack. A stationary decoder requires a separate power supply to operate the turnout motors; the DCC part of the decoder just tells them which direction to move. Some DCC boosters can be powered using your old power packs, too.

When we rebuilt a large club layout and switched from using individual power packs to a centralized power supply and walk-around throttles, the old power packs were used for building and street lights. We use the same centralized power supply for our DCC system, and can operate both ways.

Now, for the track question, others have already explained what the code means as far as rail size is concerned. When we built our 20 x 40 foot HO-scale club layout we were on an extremely tight budget and individual members had to pay for most of the track and turnouts. We used Atlas and Model Power flex track. Model Power track was cheaper than Atlas. The two major differences between these two brands are flexibility of the rail and the crosstie size. The rail is exactly the same on both if they are the same code. MP track is stiffer and harder to bend into shape, but once bent it holds its shape better than Atlas. The crossties on Atlas track are larger than MP's. Once the track is in place and ballasted, though, it's hard to tell the difference between the two. Model Power track comes only in code 100 rail, so if you choose to use a smaller code rail, you'll have to use Atlas or a more expensive brand than Model Power.

[Train 284]

QUOTE: Originally posted by joeyegarner

There are different codes, Standard is code 100 there are a few others that are Code 83 and code 70 and I think thier is a code 55??. With lower numbers, The lower the number the smaller(shorter and more narrow) the rail, this is a general explanation some others here can offer you some more insight. Help me out guys.

Yes. Code 55 is actually N scale and so is 70 (I think... I know there is Code 80 for N too). But basically there are two types of HO track:

Code 100: Black ties nickel silver rail

Code 83: Brown ties nickel silver rail

The "codes" are the height of the rail like .100 of an inch and so on. Most guys here prefer Code 83 as it has a more protoypical look. But I like using Code 100 for its robust nature. But that is just my [2c]

[Anonymous]

The code number is the height of the track rail in thousands of an inch.

Most people use Atlas flex track. Sure other manufacturers may be better, but they're not THAT much better for the price in my opinion.

I've used Atlas Code 83 with the brown ties on my last layout. Looks more realistic and the price was reasonable.

Mark in Utah

[Anonymous]

code 100,most common,been around for years,I think only the pennsy had rail this heavy in one stretch of main line; code 83, becoming favorite now, used on heavy rail lines; code 70, more expensive,nicer lookin,common to most rail lines in country; code 55,small,delicate,also looks good,most common size through 3/4 of last century.
Atlas makes both codes 100 and 83, good price,codes 70 and 55 are more expensive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train 284

QUOTE: Originally posted by joeyegarner

There are different codes, Standard is code 100 there are a few others that are Code 83 and code 70 and I think thier is a code 55??. With lower numbers, The lower the number the smaller(shorter and more narrow) the rail, this is a general explanation some others here can offer you some more insight. Help me out guys.

Yes. Code 55 is actually N scale and so is 70 (I think... I know there is Code 80 for N too). But basically there are two types of HO track:

Code 100: Black ties nickel silver rail

Code 83: Brown ties nickel silver rail

The "codes" are the height of the rail like .100 of an inch and so on. Most guys here prefer Code 83 as it has a more protoypical look. But I like using Code 100 for its robust nature. But that is just my [2c]

Actually, there is no designated code for any scale. Back in the 1960's HO track was commonly code 100, with some code 70, and a little code 40. Code 100 rail figures out to about 155 lb. per yard in prototype terms, in HO. Code 83 is about 132 lb. per yard (typical of modern prototype practice); code 70 is 100 lb. rail in prototype terms (about right for pre-WWII mainlines and for modern industrial spurs). Code 55 in HO is about 60 lb. rail, IIRC, and code 40 would represent 40 lb. rail in HO (only suitable for the lightest track). The code sizes most commonly used in N-scale are code 80 (very oversize) and code 55 (still too big, IIRC).

Most modern mainlines on the prototype use rail of about 132 lb. per yard, with a smaller amount of 150 lb+ used on the most heavily travelled lines. Today, 100 lb rail would be used for sidings, yards, and industrial spurs. And, smaller rail would be more rare than in the past. And, that is another consideration: The era of the layout will determine the appropriate size of rail to some extent, with the older time periods calling for lighter rail.

The trade-off is that small rail can be more problematic operationally, and more difficult to find. In HO the commonly available sizes are code 100 (being phased out by some manufacturers it seems), code 83 (likely the new standard) and some code 70. You pays your money and takes your choice.

Cheers,
Wetumka Fats
[C):-)]

[trainboyH16-44]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cacole

And contrary to trainboyH16-44's comment, your "DC stuff" can still be used with DCC.

Good point, but what about the rotary switches? I agree that most stuff can be used by a resurceful person, but I just can't see the rotary switches in another use.
Matthew

[Anonymous]

I don't think that any one has said...

All the main Nickel Silver Rail makes are pretty much ok... you can pretty much mix them together.

BUT... if you mix rail size... code 100 in your staging tracks and code 83 in the scenic bit (or diferent rail sizes between main and yards...

YOU MUST... ensure that the top of the rail head is at the same height (and will stay there) at the joins.

I've seen short lengths of conversion track in Walther's catalogue. You can also shim the lower height track up to meet the higher.

You ALSO get differences in tie thickness between makes (and maybe within some makes between grades). This means that you have to take the same action to avoid problems.

I would put a length (More than a loco/longest car) between any rail /tie height change and any switch or diamond.... it would keep life more simple.

[Don Gibson]

SIMPLE QUESTION:

QUOTE: Re flextrack:'' whats the differences in the track.. and is there a better grade of HO flex track, than the other" - Dian

SIMPLE ANSWER: Look's VS. Price.
ATLAS CODE 100 is oversized, been around a long time, and is CHEAPEST.
MICROSCALE CODE 83 is closer to actual size and shape and is the most REAL LOOKING.
EVERYTHING ELSE is somewhere in between. ARE there exception's? sure!, but few.

LOOK'S VS. Price.

Since TURNOUT'S are responsible for the majority of derailment's, stall's, etc. the differences in design, construction, and cost become more important. Are there exception's here? No!

FUNCTION VS. pricet.

[Anonymous]

Okay Don, so from experience... which is the most functional switch currently on the market?

[electron]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dian

I am getting to a point of needing to buy some bulk flex track, I am wondering... since I am having a hard time finding the differences explained online, whats the differences in the track.. and is there a better grade of HO flex track, than the other?

I am familiar with Peco Code 83, Walthers Code 83, and Atlas Code 83. Mechanically and cosmetically, I would rate the Peco as #1. But the Atlas track is the best value, and the Walthers, while of good quality, is greatly overpriced.

Among Code 100 track, I am familiar with Peco and Atlas, and would rate the Peco as significantly better quality, and worth the extra cost.

For my new layout, I have purchased Atlas Code 83 flex track for the main part of the layout, and Peco Code 100 for my staging yard.

[Anonymous]

I think Don means Micro Engineering code 83 looks the best. I would agree and ME is what I use for both turnouts and flex in codes 83, 70 and 55 in HO. It is more expensive but I value the look so I am wiling to pay . Operationally it is excellent. To my eye, the rail shape is closer to prototype than any other brand out there.....The turnout selection is limited to No. 6's, so I augment with other brands when I need different sizes and cofigurations. All of my staging is Peco turnouts (rock solid) and Atlas code 100 flex (cheap & reliable)

I wouldn't consider code100 on visible track for the transition era or earlier because it looks too heavy to my eye. I have found no problems with code 83 from an operational standpoint when compared to code 100. Code 70 also works quite well. I find I have to clean the code 55 more than the other track sizes so I don't use it as often and keep it out of places I can't reach.