I had a conversation recently with a senior statesmen of our hobby about track. It seems an exceptional amount of time effort and money has gone into super detailing if you will locomotives,rolling stock and structures but little or none into track and turnouts. Your basically stuck with what the manufactures what to sell you with the exception of hand laying of course and there are some who say even hand laid track and turnouts are 100% prototypically accurate as there are not spikes and tie plates on ever tie etc.Many of us are even flawed in our application of track as well. Example we all take for granted or assume that code 83 is the standard (using HO as an example) for mainline track and code 70 for branch lines and yards etc. Code100 is generally used because trains seem to run better or smoother on it some will argue this point but strictly generally speaking. Where the fact of the matter is if you are modeling lets say a coal hauling layout code 100 would be more prototypical as coal roads used 133 pound rails and the PRR even went as high as 154. Code 83 would be more for a standard road. If your a more modern modeler standards rail standards changed to medium heavy rails and even lighter for commuter railroads hence the term Light rail.
My question is what do you do to make your track look more prototypical.
Configure it and weather it so that it looks good. You can even get Code 100 (which works out to about 165 lbs/yd) to look good, but not so much in head-on photos where the rails rise in apparent size very quickly as they approach the lens.
So, paint up the ties with some variation, even Dremel grind some of their ends to get variations in lengths, ballast carefully, weather the rails, and then weather the ballast using Joe Fugate’s method. You brush a mix of brown and black tempera powder and paster of Paris over the inner ballast and spritz it with wet water to make it stick in place. Add cinders here and there.
Now, if you want to super-detail, you can fill your boots. Several suppliers offer detailing for track components, especially turnouts, as described in the latest issue from Kalmbach on How to Build Realistic and Reliable Track.
Nice work as always, I am familar with Joe’s method but with my fat fingers I have a long way to go as far as perfecting it. Maybe a case or tow of flex track might be enough.
What I was interested in and maybe I should have been a little clearer is are you all that much concerned with what code track goes where. Such as 70 in yards and branch line 83 on the main etc. Not wanting to run the risk of sounding like a rivet counting anal retentive bonehead but I actually gave thought to tearing out what I have done so far on the main and replacing it with code 100 as well as changing the one yard that is finished from 83 to 70 and all the new yards that haven’t been installed yet make the switch as well. Then I have also found myself staring at turnouts saying this doesn’t look real enough or maybe it needs this or that. Then I need to cold slap of reality to set in and say who’s going to see this besides you and how the heck much more is that going to cost and for what. I just wish more was offered by the manufactures
I look at it this way – compare old Tyco track with old Tyco trains. Then compare old (1960’s) BB trains to say Code 100 HO track. Now compare current Atlas code 83 to current Atlas RTR rolling stock and engines. Lastly, consider brass to hand laid track and I would saw that track and trains are staying just about neck and neck on the details. You can tweak each to the level you are looking for your skill level. Also, I would consider what your objectives are - showing off your scratch built engine (static display), dependable track for operations (Fugate’s quantity vs. quality of operations), or entry level first layout kind of a thingJust my thoughts…. By the way, I’m very happy with my Atlas code 83 (with mentioned Fugate weathering and ballast) and my Atlas RTR’s (with some old BB stuff mixed in) with a little upgrading (kadees and weathering) built for operatins on a transistional layoutratled
On my last HO layout, the standard gauge was laid with code 70 and the narrow gauge with codes 55 and 40. Code 83 wasn’t available. For my planned HO layout, the mainline’s main track will be code 83, the secondary and branchline track will be code 70, and most industrial track will be code 55. That’s what makes me happiest.
If the track you want isn’t manufactured, make it yourself or hire someone to make it. There are several manufacturers of custom track (turnouts, crossings) who charge reasonable fees.
You will get lots of opinions on this…I fall on the side of caring quite a bit about realistic looking track. I use ME (Micro Engineering) flex for all visible track work for several reasons. The railhead shape and cross-section is more prototypical, the spike and plate detail is pretty close to scale and I don’t have to handlay…I also use ME no.6’s when I can because of their realistic appearance.
As for rail code, if you are going to be prototypical, even code 83 is too heavy for most pre modern era mainlines (PRR is a notable exception). I use 83 on my mainlines, code 70 on the branches (more than half the run on my railroad) and code 55 on sidings. I run all RP 25 or better flanges on the rolling stock and have no issues with derailments etc…
I have heard the claim that the only place you can tell the rail code size is in pictures but I would disagree with that comment. If you start with more accurately sized/detailed rail, the eye may not be able to spot it per se exactly, but the scene will look more realistic overall when compared to one using over sized rail and spikes. I did a test board and ballasted several codes and brands of rails side by side to see the differences. From the results of this test, I made my choices.
I do think that rail size is one of many factors that goes into making a realistic layout. I’ve seen some great layouts using code 100. I think that a layout is a snapshot of the choices made when construction began on the pike. This can be as much as twenty or thirty years ago when looking at a large, nearly complete railroad. Many modelers made choices about code sizes etc,. in a different era and you see these reflected in the layouts. Many have told me that they would make different choices if they were to start over again today.
I agree with Mark generally, Allegheny, although that could/oughta be as simple as what your motives might be in the modelling process. Is it your desire to be more prototypical to scale? How strong is your own requirement…enough to actually rip out what you have? Strictly a personal choice.
On my next layout, I am probably going to go with Code 83 on the main. If I went smaller, I would not be maintaining fidelity to the rails that my BLI J1, pictured, would normally operate on. I would definitely recycle salvageable Code 100 for hidden tracks (why the heck not!!?), but my mains would be better at a more prototypical height. Otherwise, Code 70 in industrial places. Code 83 in the yards due to the loading gauge for all the tonnages using the rails…and the fact that I have perfectly salvageable, and costly, Peco Code 83 turntous.
I would have to remake my Fast Tracks turnouts, though…they care currently Code 100 rail. [:(]
In the November 1962 Clinic, Model Railroader printed an excellent article on rail sizes, both prototype and model. They even gave some figures on how much of what size rail was used by the prototype in various eras. It’s the best reference I’ve seen on rail sizes so far. I highly recommend ordering the article if you are interested in the subject, assuming you are modeling 1960 or earlier.
When I pick rail sizes, I go by that article and some of the historians in the hobby for a typical prototype of the era I am modeling, making adjustments to fit what is available. I’m not about to start making my own rail or having it custom made. But there is only one size model rail to represent prototype rail from 60lbs to 90lbs - code 55. The same is true with code 70 - it has to represent everything from 90lb to 120lb rail in HO.
So, although not strictly accurate, I use the following guidelines for my 1900 era Oregon-based short lines where the track is handlaid:
I am still in the planing and gathering stage of a home layout. PRR fictional branch line of the 40s. A small section of main line in code 83. Branch line track is all code 70 with industrial track and maintenance tracks of code 55 and some code 40. All on CVT ties and turnout ties pre painted. Rail braces and joint bars on visible track.
After years of modular railroading and the clubs track I have decided that track is a model also and everything looks better either in person or on film with detailed track. Just painting the code 100 rail on my modules makes the track look better and smaller.
I may even convert to P87 and sergeant couplers on the home layout.
As I have said in many posts, many times, my Santa Fe dates back to 1984 when I first started building it. This means most of the mainline track is code 100, even the scratchbuilt track and switches. I also used code 83 when it became available for some passing tracks, but with three decks, hidden trackage, I am not going to mess with a completed railroad just to change rail sizes to satisfy the purists. I want reasonable ballasting, colors, right of way, I used homabed when I started building it and the roadbed for the layout remains homabed.
At age 73, I am not about to rip it out and start over, maintaining what I have is about all I can handle now. So if the code 100 offends you, then please avoid coming over when I am on tour.
I’m pretty serious about track because, in my experience, the trains don’t run well without it. [D)]
Ok, ok… I use code 83 throughout on my 1900-ish layout even though smaller sizes are available.
I chose not to use code 70 because:
the difference between 83 and 70 is too small for me to get worked up over
the availability of components (turnout sizes, crossings, etc. is very limited)
Its a tad too fragile for my ham-fisted tracklaying
Otherwise, I want the track to look as good as I can reasonably get it. I do thin out the tie spacing and use lower roadbed for secondary track and sidings. Plan to paint rails and ties with some variety and paint or stain the ballast as needed.
I remember a similar thread on this subject some time ago getting locked because of a rather volcanic argument coming up about exactly HOW detailed the track should be and what rail-size kept you from being a mere train runner to a ‘modeler’.
For my opinion, at least, the argument went WAY beyond ‘how realistically do you want to portray your track’ into the realm of Idiocy. Hopefully this one won’t.
I model in HO. I use Code 100 for my main line and Code 83 for my yards. I will admit that if I had it to do over again, I’d probably go with the more ‘realistic’ Code 83 for my main and a smaller code for my yards, but all the considerable trackage on my 24’x24’ Yuba River Sub is laid and it’s too late for that–I’m not tearing out THAT much trackage just to satisfy my camera. Besides, my trains run well on it.
Code 100 can be carefully painted and ballasted to approximate something that will ‘pass’ as a do-able mainline for heavy traffic. Somehow painting the rails seems to reduce the oversize look of the web and the height (though I will certainly agree with my friend Crandell that the camera angle exposure has to be carefully considered when photographing it) and I can live with the oversized plastic ‘spikes’. But then, I can also live with the often visible Tomar track sliders between the drivers of my brass steam, too. It makes them run better for me. [:P] And I’ve got fellow brass modelers on this forum that do not use them, and I fully respect their decision. It’s all in the individual approach.
I use the ‘3-foot’ rule on my Yuba River Sub. If it looks good from 3 feet, then I’m satisfied. I’m not wedded to a camera (I’m not a very good photographer to begin with), so when I flip on my power-pack and fire up the layout, I’m mainly interested in my locos and the trains that
Aaahhh, track. Even though this Alaskan railroad is narrow-gauge, ties are large and rail is heavy. After all, it is only carrying the most valuable (and most potentially litigious) cargo.
My HO-scale GE 70-tonner converted to HOn3 looked “right” running on handlaid standard-gauge ties topped with code 70 rail. Just think “Plaster City” – a prototype industrial railroad in S. Calif.
I would second what others have said about weathering. I handlay S scale track (using code 100 rail, which is about like code 83 for HO) and I’ve found that varied tie color, slightly uneven tie placement, weathered rail, weeds, etc., does a lot toward realism. I’ve especially enjoyed modeling poorly-maintained industrial sidings (being careful that actual running is NOT impaired).
Isn’t track a model just as much as rolling stock and structures? Shouldn’t we all model our track in keeping with our other modeling demands? I used to think that whatever track worked could be painted to look good and that was that, but now I look at my track as a part of my modeling. I can’t stand to use any of the commercialy available offerings in prefab track because to me (now) it looks very toylike and my eyes can’t pull away from it. I’ve gone to Proto 83, yeah it’s expensive and a royal pain to put together all the nitpicky do dads and such, but for me it’s worth the effort.
I’m moving more towards the “total concept” of model railroading where (ghasp! and horrors!) I’ve become a rivet counter. That is the way I like to model now, it works for me and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. But to steal a page from Obama’s book, LET ME BE CLEAR, I don’t expect anybody else to model the way I do, and I don’t throw stones at other people’s work because it doesn’t meet my perceptions of what the model should be. Some use generalities such as code 100 on mains, 83 on branch and 55 in yards, if that works for you great! I prefer to model a specific scene from real life and use the correct weigh of track the prototype used in that situation, with all the buggers of dips and kinks in the track as well.
To each his own, but I feel that track is a model just the same as the rolling stock and structures, and therefore should be built with the same care and attention to detail and prototype fidelity.
In my admittedly biased opinion, reliability is far more important than appearance, and simplicity always trumps complication. If simple, reliable trackwork is superdetailed down to anticreepers and properly greased steel slides on the ties under the switch points, fine. If not, who will really notice?
The “Elder statesman,” paraphrased in the IP might have been a proponent of Proto87, or a diorama builder for the local museum. Both have a vested interest in, “Museum quality,” track modeling. OTOH, my modeling is designed to support operations, not to impress Hyperdetail Hank. Who will notice whether the concrete ties actually have accurately-modeled Pandrol clips when the constant parade of locomotive-hauled passenger trains, freights, EMU and DMU sets scarcely allows for a clear and detailed view?
What it really comes down to is, who decides what level of detail is suitable to YOU?? The only answer that counts is the one made by the person wearing your moccasins. Others are entitled to their opinions - and are likely to gather more kudos for keeping them between their ears and away from their lips and fingers.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on flex track with hand-laid specialwork)
“My question is what do you do to make your track look more prototypical.”
to answer your original question, i try to build it so the trains will stay on it. (unless you are modeling the early days of the Penn Central)
after operating dependability is achieved, then i worry about the appearance. both are possible but my priority is operation. with my limited skills and time available, i think a 4 hour operating session without a stall or derailment is more important than having the spike heads exactly correct.
a little paint and ballast goes a long way in making it look good enough for me but i would never take anything away from those who have more realistic appearing trackwork.
