Can these two ho code tracks be combined or is it better if they are kept separate?
thanks, stephen
Yes, they can be combined. I think someone out there makes track transition joiners, but I’ve also read that some have had success flattening one end of the joiner, soldering it to the bottom of the rails of one piece, and just slipping it on the other. Sounds like a lot of trouble to me, when you can just use the same track code all the way, but some prefer to use what they got. As enexpensive as most track is, I just use all the same code. I can’t really make that blanket statement about my latest layout, as I’m using all Peco On30 flex track anf Peco turnouts. That ain’t cheap, but I’m sticking with the same code throughout.
They curtainly can be combined,
Your only big difference is looks, if you want it to look TOTALLY realistic I would stay away from it but it to the untrained eye, it won’t even be noticable!
If you have these pieces of track and have a layout plan, I would say go for it!!!
Good luck!
Raptor55
If you have ANY questions just email me @ raptor5@comcast.net
Mix rail sizes? The prototype does it all the time.
Yes you can use different rail sizes on a layout. Usually the larger code is used for main tracks and smaller sizes used for sidings, spurs and branch lines.
Some modelers (who don’t like the appearance of the larger oversize code) use smaller code on visible track and the larger in tunnels and other places where it not easily seen or reached. This may be because the happen to have it, or because the larger code is often cheaper, or to ensure reliability.
There are rail joiners available to connect different track codes or you may make your own connection.
The one thing to be sure of is to be sure your eguipment will operate smoothly on the smaller rail. A friend of mine built an HO layout using code 83 for the main line and code 70 on a logging branch. All his equipment worked fine on code 83, but some of his equipment had trouble with code 70 due to flange depth. Untortunately most of the deep flange equipment was the branch line stuff. A major wheel change effort was required to make the branch work.
They indeed can be combined and Micro Engineering makes a transition rail joiner to fit.
I take exception to raptor55’s comment on the appearance of different size rail. On my last HO layout circa 1979 I used Code 83 for my mainline trackage and did my sidings, side tracks, and spurs/industrial trackage in Code 55. It looked absolutely fantastic; my sidings, side tracks, and spur/industrial trackage looked like sidings, side tracks, and spur/industrial trackage and not like misplaced mainline. To adjust for the 28/1000 inch difference in track heighth I propped up the end tie under the Code 55 with a piece of 1/32 inch stripwood and then did some very light sanding to get the two different codes to level up; I modified a Code 55 rail joiner to get the two dissimiliar rail codes to mate. The flange-depth on N-Scale wheelsets is small enough now to allow the use of Code 40 flex-track and on my future N-Scale pike I am going to use Code 55/Code 40.
Quite apart from the transition railjoiners, Walthers makes an actual transition piece of track, I think perhaps 4 or 6 inches long, code 100 at one end, code 83 at the other (I think they also make Code 83 at one end, Code 70 at the other – so in less than a foot you could go from Code 100 to Code 70)
Dave Nelson
Yes and Walthers doesn’t allow flanges to ‘pick’ the bigger rail’s joint.
When you combine different codes, there is a difference in rail width as well as height.
- ATLAS’ code 83 has code 100’s height (only Atlas) to make transition easier.
Stephen,
Yes, as the others said, you can combine different rail sizes with no problems if done correctly. You do have to use a transition joint of some type, just like the prototype. These are known as Compromise Joints on the prototype and come in different sizes and left and right hand types.
You can use the ready made transition tracks or make up your own transition joiners. We’re using Codes 100, 83, 70, and 55 on our layout with no problems. We have code 100 in our hidden trackage, 83 on the main, code 70 in the sidings and yards and we have code 55 in some coal loaders.
We make our own transition joiners by taking a dremel with a cut-off disk, slicing a railjoiner of the larger section in half, don’t cut all the way through, leave the bottom intact. The reason for that slice is if you just crush it, you have a section that isn’t completely flat and it will keep the two rails apart. Then you crush the one end of the joiner flat and slip the intact end on the bigger rail. Put a small amount of solder onto the flattened part, put the smaller rail on that and solder the joint. We also used some cardstock to shim up the smaller rail to the larger since the ties are also shorter on the smaller rail.
Yes, it was a little more work, but it has been worth it. In spite of what some will tell you, just about everyone notices the rails are different sizes.
The different rail sections are readily apparent when you go look at the prototype. Railroads are cheap. Excuse me, frugal? Fiscally responsible? The size rail is based on traffic, gross tons per mile and various other factors. They don’t spend any of that precious capital on a rail section that is bigger than required to do the job. You will see the big rail used in places that don’t make sense, but that is due to cascading rail down. They take the worn rail from the mainline and put it in branches, sidings and yards.
So to look totally realistic, you do need to have different rail sizes.
As