In keeping with my growing interest in the history of railroads, I’m building a small diorama of a pre 1900 era model in HO scale. So far I’ve been able to locate suitable models but not track. Using the modern generic looking track doesn’t seem to look right… does anyone make track that looks more like it did before 1900?
Yeah. You.
Code 100 rail is about 8.7" tall in HO scale; Code 83 is about 7.2"; Code 70 is about 6"; Code 55 is about 4.8"; and Code 40 is about 3.5". Micro Engineering makes rail in Codes 40 and 55, which are appropriate for your needs. Their web site indicates “N.A.” for Code 55 standard gauge flex track; but Code 55 narrow gauge flex track appears to be available. Not many narrow gauge roads used rail as tall as 4.8" in 1900. One of my references says 100 lb. rail on the B&O was 5.75" tall in 1906.
It seems that your best bet is to buy the rail only and hand-lay Code 40 or Code 55. I don’t envy you that task.
Tom
Looking at old photos, one notices that at one time there were no tie plates - the rail was spiked directly to the ties. And the ties were often shorter than more recent ties. For example at the A.E.R.A. Convention of 1924, a committee on cross ties reported that in 1905 heavy mainline ties were 8 feet long by 6 inches by 8 inches. In 1924 ties for first class mainline track had increased to 8.5 feet long by 7 inches by 9 inches. The report suggested 9 feet should be considered but even in 1935 8 feet 6 inches was adhered to.
In the 5th edition of the classic text by William Raymond “Elements of Railroad Engineering,” the authors wrote that “the old standard 8 foot ties are no longer suitable for mainline traffic.”
Rails changed too as one can learn from the book on rail cross sections by Eugene Lewis, published by the Chicago & North Western Historical Society and pretty essential reference for anyone seriously interested in accurate modeling of older track.
And of course before the 20th century stub switches rather than moving points switches were still common – go back long enough and they were universal. That means hand laying although I suspect a stub switch is the easiest kind to hand lay. Not easy, but easier than a moving points type turnout.
Often ballast differed to but different railroads had different preferences. Cinders were far more common, as was foundry slag.
My own suggestion, unless you propose to custom cut ties and handlay all track using just about the smallest rail section you feel comfortable dealing with, is to use commercial flex track perhaps Code 70 if you can get it, make sure it is weathered so that the size of the rail is visually minimized, try to ballast it as if it was cinders (I have used finely sifted fireplace ash to simulate cinder ballast with some success) and
Don’t forget stub turnouts. Called, bending the rail at one time I believe.
There were a few other types of turnouts tried in the late 1800’s.
You will be in the minority. Not many model this era, especially at the size rail used at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_switch#Stub_switch
I made some using HO code 100 and they were a challange. Two way and three way.
Last I knew, Cream City Turnouts had code 55 rail.
Rich
Like Dave said, many areas of the eastern half of the USA were almost clear cut between say 1880 and 1920 for fire wood, ties, buildings, etc
Rich
Stub switches were almost gone in standard gauge by 1900, they haunted mostly struggling short lines and poorer narrow gauge roads into the twentieth century and even then only in real back water areas and low use sidings.
As speeds increased, stub switches rapidly went away.
Anyone modeling in code 55 and especially code 40 will need to watch their flange depths and be ultra careful on track work to avoid trouble spots and rolling stock humping and bumping on clumped grains of ballast, switch frogs, etc. It looks great, sure, but forget high speed trains and be prepared for track issues. There is always that one spot…