I am curious as to which track sizes (codes) HO scale standard guage modelers are using. I am aware of code 100, 83, 80, 75, 70, 55, and 40 being used.
Which size(s) are you using?
Are you handlaying track?
I am planning on a small coal mine layout, and at the present am leaning towards Peco code 75.
Thank you
I’m using Kato Unitrack for HO, with narrow-profile code 83 track.
I’m using HO scale code 83 Atlas.
I’m using Atlas Code 100 on my layout.
Jamie
Mainling - Code 83
Passing Sidings and Yards - Code 70
Industrial spurs - possibly Code 55
Ricky
Rebuilding to true proto87 spec.
code 70 & 55
turnouts handbuilt, (ground throws), track handlaid.
40% of equipment original wheels have been turned down to proto87 specs. (Microlux)
Switches made using a fasttrack template.
Mainline: Code 83
Sidings/yards Code 70
All on CVT tie strips
Chris
Lancaster, CA
Code 100 on double track main, code 83 on mountain line, sidings, spurs, yard. Some code 70 on interchanging railroads, industrial areas and mtn. line spurs. A touch of code 55 for “abandoned” track.
If I had it to do over (with today’s availability) I MIGHT drop down one size.
Karl
PS: no handlaying yet.
Code 100 on the module, Code 70 on the layout main, and Code 50 sides on the layout sidings. I’ve found that as the railhead shrinks with the smaller codes, you need to be more aggressive with keeping the track and wheelsets clean, but when keeping wheels and track clean it works fine.
For the 1067mm gauge lines on my layout (actual gauge 16.5mm.)
The Netherworld (hidden staging and thoroughfares) Atlas Code 100 flex, hand laid code 100 specialwork.
Visible main line and other heavy duty track, Atlas code 83 flex (some on concrete ties,) hand-laid code 83 specialwork.
Secondary spurs, code 70, handlaid.
Semi-abandoned spurs smothered in weeds, code 55.
That gives me a rough approximation of the actual rail sizes used by my prototypes (except for the Code 100, which isn’t intended to see the light of day.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Atlas code 100 in staging - 400’
ME code 83 - Class one Mainline - 100’
Me Code 70 - light branch line and sidings off of Class one - 150’
ME code 55 industrial sidings, yard sidings - 60’
The only scratchbuilt track is specialty turnouts and crossings - roughly 7 out of 70+ turnouts. Most turnouts are ME in codes 83 and 70. Others include Shinohara, Railway Engineering, Peco, Darr, BK and Litco
I would suggest switching to code 70 so that you have more options available from a variety of companies, presuming that you aren’t going to hand lay your track.
My two cents,
Guy
I used Shinohara code 70 flex track and turnouts and a few code 70 Micro Engineering turnouts when I couldn’t get the Shinohara’s.
I use ME code 70 for the whole thing. My layout is set in the early 20th century, and rail was lighter than it is now. Code 70 scales to 6 inches tall; code 83 represents 7.22 inches, and code 100 is almost 9" tall rail. For me, code 70 looks most realistic for most situations.
My entire layout is code 100 flex track, mostly Atlas, some Peco and Micro Engineering.
Code 100 is somewhat over sized for HO, but it is common as dirt and cheap. Code 83 is about scale size for heavy mainline rail. It’s pretty easy to buy and will become the HO standard sometime in the future. Unless your eyes are phenomenal you will not see any difference between 83 and 80. Code 75 is not terribly common but is probably a good size for lighter rail used off the main line. Code 55 and code 40 are so small as to cause trouble with even RP25 flanges hitting spikes.
If you are concerned with the appearance of the rail, paint it rust brown. Painted rail looks much smaller than bright and shiney nickel silver.
I’m curious as to why you would use Peco code 75 track with it’s British appearance in regards to ties (sleepers) and tie spacing. The turnouts in particular don’t have a North American appearance. Peco brought out their code 83 line to better model North American practice.
As for me, I model 1900 in HO and HOn3. For the initial track work, I am using Atlas code 83 and Shinohara/ME code 70 and 55 in narrow gauge in an effort to get the test track running quickly. Additional and future track will be handlaid using code 70, 55, and 40. Code 70 is really too big for the era, and code 40 is a little light for all but the least-used spurs. I am using the different sizes to emphasize the differences in gauges and track usage.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
The PECO C75 turnouts are pretty small, handy for tight spaces.
Code 83 Atlas (mostly flex) on main level including yards.
Code 100 Atlas on lower level staging.
Commercial turnouts; blend of Atlas and Peco (where appearance counts)
For my Mainline I am using Atlas Code 83. For my Yard track and sidings I will use Code 70. Also I am thinking about trying code 55 for my upper part of my layout which is a Branchline off of the mainline to end at a Grainery. Kevin
Hi Fred;
Code 83 is too big for the my application, number 6 turnouts are too long, which as far as I can tell leaves CVT kits with code 70, hand layed or Peco code 75. The club I belonged in OKC did have not had good experience with Shinohara, and had excellent experience with Peco. The ties will be pretty much buried at coal mine, so that is not too big a concern.
Since my layout was started in 1984, most of the mainline on all three decks is code 100, A lot of it is ME. I also have used code 83 and code 70 on some more recent additions/changes.
Switches are mostly Peco and Shinohara. Quite a bit of the mainline is handlaid code 100 on wood ties (NMRA MMR stuff), and includes some scratchbuilt switches for the same reason.
Bob