On my layout I am planning on using the Kadee magnets that fit between the rails. Is it possible to cover them with ballast so they won’t be visible and still work? I seem to remember a similar thread about this subject but don’t remember the details. Any help will be appreciated. Bob
To function properly, the height of the top surface of the magnet will not likely allow enough room for the coupler gladhands to pass if you cover the magnet with a layer of ballast. I don’t find their appearance all that objectionable: there’s one in the photo below just to the left of the lumber-laden flatcar. I normally use a hand-held tool for uncoupling, but I wanted the benefits of delayed-action for spotting cars under the silos on this track.
It’s a little more noticeable here:
To use these magnets with code 83 track, I cut away the ties beneath the magnet, then use a sheet of .060" styrene sheet glued to the roadbed with contact cement, with the magnet glued on top of that. This gives perfect height. If you’re really concerned about the appearance, why not use Kadee’s under-the-track magnets?
Wayne
Thanks Wayne- I’ll probably stick with the between the rails magnets. Covering them was just a thought. Perhaps you could answer a question about Code 83 rail- I have some Athearn boxcars that I bought back in the 70’s,would I have any problems running them on Code83 or would I be better off staying with Code100?
Thanks-Bob
I’ve got lots of stuff, including Athearn, from as far back as the '50s, and it all runs just fine on code 83 track. And unless the wheels are in some way damaged, or, as with some Train Miniature and early Walthers stuff, out-of-round or not concentric on the axles, I don’t replace the plastic wheels. It is important to ensure that the wheels are properly gauged, though, and this is true regardless of what code of track you use.
Wayne
Thanks Wayne-At least I now know that I shouldn’t have problems with Code83 rail. I’ll probably invest in an NMRA guage so I can check the wheel spacing. Thanks again-Bob