I was reading the forum topic from UNIONPACIFIC4018 “Which Code of Track” and realized I don’t really understand what the different codes mean. I think that the rails on Code 83 are shorter and more prototypical than Code 100, but what about Code 70, Code 55, Code 40? Why should I choose one code over another? If Code 83 is good, is Code 55 better?
I am planning an HO layout (my first) that will use the Denver & Rio Grande and Colorado Midland as prototypes. Does the prototype affect the choice of track code?
I have tried unsuccessfully to search Model Railroader to find the answer.
Rail code in the modelling world designates the height of the rail in hundredths of an inch. Code 100 rail is .100 inches tall; code 83 is .83 inches tall; etc.
Real rail is measured in pounds per yard; i.e., 110 pound rail, etc.
What I think you’re interested in is why someone would favor one code over another.
In the modeling world our rail is generally oversized to facilitate better running capabilities. The smaller the rail, the more it looks like the prototype. The catch is that the smaller rail is less forgiving of small descrepancies such as wheels out of gauge or oversize flanges.
Using smaller code rail enhances the look of the model but it is a little more labor intensive.
I use code 70 on the mains and code 55 on the branches on my road. This reflects the heavier rail used on mainline tracks and lighter rail on sideline tracks. Just make sure if you do this that the railtops are even when you go from one to the other.
I’d like to correct your statement about “code” and rail height. The numbers represent thousandths of an inch, not hundredths, so Code 100 rail is 0.100" in height, Code 83 rail is 0.083", Code 70 is 0.070", and Code 55 is 0.055".
I don’t remember the relationship to code size and the specific weight of the prototype rail, but I remember that Code 83 is very near what most Class 1 railroads used for main line rail. Code 100 is a little large and is typically used by toy train manufacturers whose models have large, deep flanges. More forgiving of bad track-laying. Code 70 and Code 55 are representative of rail used on short lines or industrial spurs and sidings.
I think the answer that you are looking for is 83 for mainlines, and 70 for less heavily used tracks. Code 55 could be used for the most lightly used tracks like industrial spurs. I’m not sure you even want to go down to 40 in HO, at least not in standard gauge. Many modelers feel that code 100 is oversized even for mainlines, but it is still the most commonly used track in the hobby.
Rail size was a bigger issue for the railroads in the past, more so than today, given the technology and the material cost. Today there only a couple of standard rail weights that the manufacturers produce.
The rule of thumb is the more heavily used the track, the heavier the rail, simple as that.
This page on NMRA’s site http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-15_1.html has a table showing the prototype rail and it’s equivalent in different scales. It also has a table showing average usage of the different weights for 1940-1960 for class 1 railroads. For HO code 83 closest to about 132 lb would be a good heavy rail, probably main lines. Code 70 closest to 100 lb would be the most commonly used, secondary lines, active spurs. Code 55 closest to 75 lb would be used only a little - older spurs, etc.
Enjoy
Paul
Well my thing is I want strong track reliable operation
I was going to go with code 100 but I found a place that has code 83
I have some old trains with large flanges that I would like to run.
There is a very good chance that they will not run on code 83. If you can, take one of the models to your LHS that sells both 100 and 83 and see if you can puhe older model along the tracks. If the flanges are like those on my older Britirains, they will bump along the top of the code 83 ties. I had to settle for code 100 to run these trains.
Here is somthing else I noticed
most online stores list stuff temporarily unavailable
what the heck
you would think track would be something you would not run out of