In building a new layout I want to move away from standard Code 100 rail and use a more realistic size of rail. The layout I am building has the following characteristics:
theme: transition, late 1950s, branchline rural Alberta, Canada
plan specs: 24" min radius, turnouts #4.5 & #6
I like the look of Code 70 rail, but could be convinced to consider otherwise. My request to this forum is for input to this decision. I would appreciate comments on your experience and knowledge with different rail sizes, with particular attention to these areas of concern:
commercial availability of turnouts and track components
Personally I used Code 83. First, I am modeling the UP and Code 83 come fairly close to UP mainline rail from the 1950s. Code 83 has quite a variety of material available from Walthers, Atlas and others. I used Code 70 on some branch and yard tracks, mostly for apperance, but also because I have a batch of Shinohara turnouts from a previous project. Code 70 has nice track available from Shinohara and Micro Engineering. I bought a couple pieces of ME Code 55 rail for some industrial purs, but the use of these has been limited by my not wanting to build my own turnouts, so I put Code 55 rails beyond Code 70 turnouts (soldering adapter pieces for the transition). One does have to watch the ballasting with smaller rail as high ballast or lumps can cause derailments, but with a bit of care there isn’t a problem. I haven’t run into any particular problems caused by smaller rail (just by my track laying!). The modeling skill differences are minimal. If you do change sizes of rail you need to make transition pieces and that just takes careful soldering. The trick is to make the inner and top surfaces of the rail meet smoothly - that’s the only part that the wheels care about. Don’t melt the ties and cause the joint to go out of guage and don’t create a vertical “kink” at the joint. As long as you are using NMRA RP25 wheels you shouldn’t have any operating problems with Code 70 rail.
From your ‘plan specs’; about the only commercial 4.5 turnouts that I am aware of are Atlas Code 100(152-155 lb rail) and Code 83(125-132 lb rail) turnouts(Customline #4). The rural Canadian branches in the wheat growing areas were laid with very light rail. In dieselization, light GP’s and GMD1 engines many times worked those lines. Code 70 works out to about 90-110 lb rail, and even that would be too big to model the 60-75 lb rail found on some of those branches. If you need to be prototypical, maybe hand laying would be the way to go.
When the track is painted/weathered, it will ‘look’ a lot smaller. The ease/availability/cost of the Atlas Code 83 trackage has a lot going for it. Most any wheel flange will run on code 83. I have been using the Atlas code 83 trackage on my ‘branch line’ and I am very satisfied with it. The ‘main line’ was laid with Code 100 and after painting the rail and ballasting, it looks quite good. If I built a new layout, I would use the Atlas Code 83 trackage as it is available and the cost is usually less than for other brands. My experience has been that it is smooth running. I have only seen one turnout that had a ‘high’ frog, and a few swipes with my fine cut mill file resolved that issue.
I would go with Jim–Code 83 has a lot of components available, and even if it is being used by a lot of model railroaders as ‘mainline’ trackage, painting and ballasting will ‘shrink’ the appearance of the rail a lot.
I laid my Yuba River Sub mainline with code 100 eight years ago, and if it weren’t so expensive to do, I’d probably replace it with code 83. However, I use code 83 in my main yard, and painted and ballasted, it has a very ‘light-rail’ look to it.
I’m not really familiar with what’s available in code 70, especially for what you’re specifically needing. But I don’t think you’d have any problem finding components in code 83 to lay your trackage.
My layout has everything from code 100 to code 55. I do not have problems using code 100 when it is properly painted and has ballast. I have used code 100 because of the modular standards I am using on my main line. All things being equal, I would recommend code 83. Cost must be a consideration but IMO and based on my own experience, I would insist on using Peco turnouts wherever possible. I have used Peco HOe turnouts on my HOn30 branch and where I am using Peco code 75 in my mill yard. All of my code 100 track also has Peco turnouts. Peter Smith, Memphis
I’d go with code 70. It is a significant contrast from the heavy-duty, first-class, mainline rail as represented by code 83. Components aren’t always immediately available: you might have to wait a month or two with a backorder.
Handlaid code 55 would be better if represting a mid-twentieth-century branchline, especially for sidings. Handlaying is particularly easy if you purchase pre-built turnouts on order from such makers as BK Enterprises.
If you’re building a quicky, throw-away layout, just get immediately available and cheap track regardless of code.
And if you can’t distinguish between the code 70 and 55 rails in the following photo, or imagine the grossness of code 83 or 100 in this scene, don’t bother with smaller code rail.
Nice track work Mark!. I agree that the smaller size track is much closer to the prototype. However, if ballast and weathering is added, the differences become less noticeable. On the other hand, smaller track is preferable if reliable turnouts can be found. Of course, hand laying would solve all of these issues and much of my HOn30 track is hand layed. The balasted track in the foreground is Micro Engineering code 55 and the track with the cars is Atlas code 100. Peter Smith, Memphis
Thanks for all the great feedback. Let me see if I’m getting it straight…
There are no reliability restrictions when using smaller rail. Modern rolling stock with RP25 wheels will function fine.
It takes no less skill to install quality Code 70 than it does for Code 100.
Availability of commercial turnouts is a restricting factor when considering Code 70. There is much less restirction with Code 83 as several manufacturers have this offering.
Hand-building turnouts (or jig built like CV or Fast Track) is an alternative when commercial availability is limited.
Again, it would really be better, from a fidelity in modelling standpoint, to know what the weight of rails is/was in this application that you have in mind. I believe Code 83 will be at least 30 pounds too heavy, but it is only a guess.
Your summary is correct, but experience can neutralize a bunch of confounding elements. And, as a person who learned how to make a turnout via the Fast Tracks method, I am pleased with the results and would highly recommend them. If you can only use three or four, then maybe purchase them built up on line where quite a few people sell them, including at auction sites. If you can already make them, so much the better.
I haven’t gotten too cranky about rail size since most of my mainline trackage is code 100. Reason being the layout was started in the early 1980s and code 100 was the standard. My version of the Santa Fe in Oklahoma includes one deck that is the ATSF mainline between Oklahoma City and Arkansas City (staging). At Guthrie, the Enid district takes off through the sheetrock and works down a helix to the middle deck where Enid is located. From Enid, the line continues down to the bottom deck and goes through Cherokee and onto the transcon main terminating at Waynoka (visible staging).
Now the real life Enid district was light rail, 30 and 40 mph speed limits but carried a lot of traffic (grain) during harvest season which I model. IF I was starting the layout today, only the top deck, Oklahoma City to Arkansas City would be code 83, and the Enid District would be code 70. But, I am not about to tear it out and rebuild it. Many of the switches were scratchbuilt as part of the NMRA MMR program and remain favorites, even if they are code 100. They are virtually bullet proof. I have replaced some of the Enid Distr. track with code 70 and like the appearance, but I seem to have more maintenance on it. I might add I use mostly 3ft rail on wood ties spiked down, and rely on flex track for areas hard to reach.
But 25 years later or so, I really don’t notice the rail size like I used to, because I have become used to the layout the way it is, so I will not replace all the code 100 to make the scale purists happy. But I do believe code 100 is more bullet proof if you are building for the long term.
