Hi. I’m looking for some advice on what type of track to use in my new layout. I’ve read a number of posts about track ranging from “stick to your prototype” to, “if it looks good, do it.” I’m kind of middle of the road (right of way?) between these views. Looking good is important, because, heck, if you don’t like how it looks, you’ll worry about that more than the running of the layout. But I also like it to be “plausible”.
I’m proto-lancing a mid-1930’s era branch line railroad based on the Arcade and Attica in Western New York. Sort of a “what if this railroad had been more successful” exercise. The prototype uses 70 lb rail today, (which as I understand corresponds to code 70), and hauls fairly light traffic, typically less than 500 frieight cars plus seasonal excursions each year. Historical data on trackage is a bit hard to find.
I’m thinking about doing my layout in code 83, and the traffic on my layout would be much higher than the prototype. If it makes a difference, motive power would be either an 0-8-0, a Consolidation or a Mike, or some combination thereof. I’m leaning toward Consolidation, which the ARA runs today.
So, is an upgrade to heavier rail, in this case from code 70 to 83 plausible? Would it work with the time period? Is that the sort of investment a railroad would make if the traffic were heavy enough? Maybe not in the 30’s but perhaps in better years in the '20’s? For the record, I can make my track plan work in either size, so that’s not a factor.
*"*The term Code 110 and Code 88 relates to the width of the wheels and has no relationship to track code. Code 110 wheels are .110" wide and Code 88 are .088" wide. Code 110 wheels are the common (or “Standard”) width wheels and Code 88 are what is called “Semi-Scale” and are used when the modeler wants a more prototypical looking wheel width. Actual HO-Scale prototypical wheel width would be around .067" wide and although they will run OK on the average track they will not go through common turnouts and crossings. Code 88 (.088") is just about the minimum width of wheel that will run on most standard or common track if gauged correctly. It really is a matter of appearances because there’s very little operational differences between running Code 110 or Code 88 wheels. Code 88 wheels look really good and are most noticeable on open frame cars like hoppers and tank cars. However, they also look great on boxcars, gondolas, and reefers but not quite as noticeable. As mentioned above track code and wheel code have no relationship meaning Code 110 and Code 88 will run on most any code of track. Track code is simply the measured height of the rail, code 100 is .100" tall, code 83 is .083" tall, code 70 is .070" tall, and so on.” (Paragraph breaks and underscore added by poster for clarification)
That being said, code 100 rail would best represent the heavier of the rails while code 83 and 70 would represent the “lighter” rail stock.
This is only applicable to HO scale. Other scales will use the same “code”- -rail height- -but will visually appear differently compared to the rolling stock.
Painted and ballasted, it becomes much harder to tell that the rail is too high. I’ve seen well done N scale code 80, which is equivalent to something well north of 150 pound rail, that doesn;t immediately scream “N scale” because of the rail height.
These days, HO code 83 probably has the biggest selection of available pieces, and I see nothing wrong with using code 83 track for a prorotype that used 70 pound rail. You can get rail and in a few cases flex track and some turnouts in smaller sizes, but you may end up having to hand lay - if that’s your thing then by all means use the smaller rail.
Wow. Thanks for all the great information. jjdamnit, your post was particularly informative, as was DSchmitt’s.
I am modeling in HO (sorry for forgetting that, and also I think I put this in the wrong section, but it’s here now), so it looks like I’ll be going code 83 (thanks for your point on N-scale though, rrinker. The same idea applies to HO, I’m sure). I’ve seen both first hand on layouts, and I do like the look of the smaller rail. And as I’ve seen elsewhere and been reminded here, a good job of ballasting and weathering can work wonders.
I laid code 100 track on my layout mostly because I had access to a nice bunch of used code 100 flex track for free. It’s a little big, but after I brush painted the rails rust brown they looked much smaller. I believe code 83 is the smallest rail in HO for which ready made flex track and turnouts are available. Paint the rails, and it will look just fine.
The wheels on the cars and locomotives, to be operated, should also be considered when chosing rail code. Code 83 works with virtually all, but code 70 has problems with some (mostly older equipment) due to wheel flange depth. Wheels are generally easy to change on cars, but difficult to change on locomotives.
A lot would depend on the motive power and rolling stock that you already have. Older Rivarossi steam locomotives had deep flanges on their wheelsets. Replacing them could be a problem. If so, I’d run code 100 track. If your equipment has NMRA RP-25 profile wheelsets, then you should be able to run codes 83, 70 and 55 without any problems.
Certainly some good advice so far. One additional point I would like to make however. Working with code 100 (I prefer Atlas) is relatively easy. But of course it is bigger than some would prefer (although painting and ballasting minimize that aspect). Code 70 and more so 55 may be very realistic, but they can be difficult to solder, etc.
So that leaves code 83 - a nice compromise in size, with components readily available from many sources.
Unless you are inviting a bunch of rivet counters over to your layout I would not get too obsessed with track code and the prototype. code 83 seems like a reasonable compromis.
From what I have viewed over the past 40 years, code 80 N scale track, ballasted or not, painted or not, looks “gross” and toylike. Of course as they say, YMMV, but if I were to switch to N scale, I would not use code 80 in visible areas - only staging. To me, code 80 track indeed screams N-scale very loudly. I suppose it’s a matter of ones level of tolerance; everyone has to decide for themself but for me, painting and ballasting it doesn’t hide it’s overscale appearance; painting/ballasting/weathering camouflages HO code 100 better, relatively speaking.
The issue above is largely moot these days, but one one happens to have ver old HO rolling stock with “pizza cutter” flanges, then you could possibly be limited from using the smaller code tracks such as code 70 or maybe code 83. The vast majority of HO products made in the past 25 years should not have any issues with common HO track in the major code 70/83/100 track.
As modern locomotives and freight cars get heavier so does the rail on major main routes… Short lines is facing to light of rail for today’s heavier cars especially grain cars.
C100 fills the bill for this heavier main line trackage.
This is what I’m thinking as well, given my research and what I’m seeing here. I’m not really worried about flanges, since the only equipment I will be running that is older than that 25 year mark, as mentioned by riogrande, would be a couple of gons, and I could easily swap the wheels out if needed. Most of what rolls here will be new or recently-made seconds. Like I said earlier, I’m not worried about counting rivets, but I don’t want anything obviously out of size or toylike, if I can avoid it. My benchmark is “plausible”. So given the parts availability, ease of use, and my own expansion plans (eventually), code 83 is looking like the best option, with maybe some 70 for sidings/yards.
Go with Code 83; it has the widest availability of products, and is the only HO code where you can get Number 5 turnouts (which are a marvelous thing). As mentioned above, nobody is actually going to notice.
Code 55 is 83 pound rail, but you’d have to make all your own switches.
Casual visitors aren’t going to be clued in to the availability of different rail sizes. Even so, their brains are going to register the fact that some track is less hefty, and therefore, probably less important, than other segments. Some of these details that are not noticed on their own – like fat framing in windows – still contribute to the overall effect.
The casual visitors to my layout would always notice the automobiles. I could have had steamers pulling a string of well cars and they would see nothing wrong, but autos all caught their eyes.
I built the first part of my layout with Code 100 and then switched to Code 83 for the rest. I really like the Code 83 much better for appearance. The ties are also larger in Code 100, at least the Atlas track, and the thinner ones look better. I find Code 83 easier to ballast, too, probably because the tie depth is lower.
If you’re going to be particular about the track, you could use Code 70 for spurs and little-used branch lines.
I had a lot of very old Tyco cars left over from my teenage years. They were fine on Code 100, but I did notice that the old plastic pizza-cutter wheels would ride up on the ties in places instead of sitting firmly on the rails. Eventually I replaced all my plastic wheels with metal ones and solved that problem.