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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 s