This may seem very very basic, but can someone point me to an article (or just quickly describe in a reply) the differences in types of HO track?
My last layout utilized Atlas 100, and I’m thinking of switching to code 83 for the new one I’m designing. I understand that the 83 is more realistic looking, but what is the advantage to PECO?
Also as far as turnouts, the software I am using (Railmodeler for Mac) has several different types of turnouts. what are the differences? some look as if the turn out section is a tighter curve, but I’m not sure.
Is there a quick refrence chart? or pros and cons of using each I should know about?
For example I built a good part of my last layout using 15" radius turns before I realized that they are too tight a turn for many cars.
Any help or discussion on the topic is appreciated.
Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong will help you understand curves, turnouts, grades etc. It doesn’t cover specific makes but does cover things like what size curve and turnout to use with what size equipment. Most people agree that for HO 18" is the minimum radius you want and 24" is better. Many manufacturers #4 turnouts, such as Atlas Customline #4’s, are actually bigger than a true #4 since a true #4 has a 15" radius part. Otherwise use #5’s with 18" and 24" curves except for crossovers where #6’s are better for long passenger cars.
You can check manufacturer’s web sites or ask here for brand specific information. I have never used Peco, but several people on this forum recommend it.
Simply put code 100 is taller then code 83 being taller it usually makes for easier running but some may debate that fact. Code 83 is preferred by many modelers as it is more prototypical[ical or realistic in size.
It used to be that you had a larger/better selection of turnouts in code 83 then in code 100 but that has since changed they may be 50/50 but I can’t say for sure because I have no interest in 100 any longer.
Concerning turnouts there are curved turnouts where both inner and outer tracks are curved, a Wye is basically where the two tracks split from on. There are a lot of different style/type of turnouts, I quoted a brief description from the nmra website. There is also a link to the site as well. Get to know it as the NMRA is the bible of model railroading.
“The turnout numbers describe the size, and the smaller the number, the sharper the turnout On a No. 4 the diverging route moves away one inch for every four on the straight side; a No. 6 has a one in six ratio, which means it is not as sharp.”
That is two totally different things. Many manufacturer’s make code 83 track (including Atlas). The best way to understand the difference between and Atlas and Peco would be to simply go and buy a Peco turnout and see for yourself. It isn’t like you won’t use it somewhere for something.
Yes, on a normal turnout the bigger the number the longer more gentle the turnout section is. A number 4 is really tight, a number 6 is considered normal for model railroads, and a number 8 is considered large.
A Wye turnout is one where both sides “turn out”. Therefore a wye turnout has numbers that are 1/2 those of a normal turnout. That is a #3 wye is equivalent to a #6 straight.
Overall, it’s a good idea to use the largest curves and highest number (most gradual) turnouts you can. In HO for passenger cars and larger locomotives, you’d probably want to go with 24-26" radius curves and no. 6 turnouts as your minimums for operation; from an appearance point of view using 30" or greater curves with no. 8 or 10 turnouts will look much better.
BTW when looking at code 83, don’t overlook Kato Unitrack.
the code of the track refers to to the heigth of the track; less direct it is related to the weight as well. Code 100 is 0.100 inch high, code 83 is 0.083 inch high, code 70 is 0.070 inch high; etc.
The flanges of your model cars are higher then on the prototype so they will hit the sleepers when you are using to light a rail. (code 55 and smaller) The prototype never spends money easy, so on seldom used spurs for cars with low axel loads a different type of rail (lighter) is used then on heavely used mainlines. Code 83 is used the most by prototype on mainlines and in much used yards, code 40 could be used on “light” spurs; alas your flanges.
Beside the number there are two kind of switches. When the curve continues through the frog we have diverting switches (Atlas snaptrack and Marklin are making these kind) and when the curve becomes a straight through the frog we have crossover-switches. A crossover is an S-curve and without a car long straight section cars could not negotiate the crossover without a derailment.
This is well covered by John Armstrong’s book Trackplanning For Realistic Operation. (Amazon press $14); the first release is 46 yrs old and it still a must to have.
On my latest effort, I switched over to code 83 from 100- I like the look of the rail. It’s no harder to work with than the code 100, and there are plenty of switches and crossovers available.
As for the turn radius, some cars and loco’s don’t operate well on a curve less than 18" radius. This is especially true if you are in the steam era and running passenger trains. Now having said that, let me create the next firestorm- I operate 4 axle diesels and shorter cars with semi-scale wheels routinely on my layout that has street running and a steel mill (with a minimum radius of 12"). They work fine and don’t derail, but a lot of this has to do with taking the time to make sure that the track work is smooth. I grind the rail joints lightly with a Dremel on the inside of the connection and then solder the joint.From there I hand paint the rails and hand weather the ties, and weather it all with alcohol diluted India ink.
Another thing that will probably create boo’s and hisses is that I laid track onto cork over blue insulation board- then pushed straight pins into the track to hold it down- then ballasted and fixed the ballast with white glue- so in essence the ballast holds the track in place as the prototype. No adhesive, caulk, anything else except ballast and diluted white glue thinned with alcohol.
I know it’s a newbe question and i understand they wouldn’t look right but do you have to stick with on manufacture in a layout when it comes to track or can you mix and match as long as it’s the same code (such at code 83)? Again i know it wouldn’t look right to do it and again talking if both kinds have or both don’t have road beds (not mixing and matching that way.)
Assuming that you are modeling in HO standard gauge (or HOj, or On30…) which has a track gauge of 16.5mm, ANY track product which has rails laid to that track gauge can be mated to any other track product of the same gauge. Getting the railheads to line up may require you to get creative with joint arrangements, but it can be done.
In my own tracklaying I have:
Stick rail laid on pine boards - hidden staging has to be in gauge, but it doesn’t have to be pretty.
Atlas Code 100 flex, ranging from ancient (fourth or fifth re-lay) to fresh out of the box.
Shinohara code 100 flex (all ancient re-lay.)
Life-like flex, laid in the netherworld where the sun don’t shine.
Atlas sectional track, Code 100 and Code 83 - in the form of rerailer sections.
Atlas Code 83 flex, both ‘wood’ and ‘concrete’ ties, all new.
Hand-laid specialwork on wood ties, Code 100 and Code 83.
Code 70, raw rail hand-laid on wood ties.
The only thing I don’t have is ‘store-boughten’ turnouts. All of these things work together just fine because I made sure the rail ends lined up (and will stay lined up.)
The other thing I do, every time, is de-burr EVERY rail end, and put a minute bevel in the flange side of every railhead. If you can run a finger along the rails and not have it ‘pick’ at the rail joints, you’re good.to go.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on a wide variety of track products)
You have gotten some really good advice from the forum and I have only one additional suggestion. I just switched from code 100 to code 83 and found some problems I didn’t expect. Mainly that I have several Rivarossi articulated engines as well as GG-1’s with the deep wheel flanges. The flanges hit the spike heads on some of the track and actually derail on certain brands of turnouts. The one Micro Engineering turnout I have has the shallowest frog casting and the wheels just went off the track. I finally filed the frog casting until they cleared but there are still too many issues with the Rivarossi engines. I have since replace the “most desirable articulateds” with newer versions that have the standard RP25 profile wheels and there is no more problem. I will have to sell the remaining engines that have the deep flanges. Just something to keep in mind if you have some older engines with deep flanges. The code 83 is definately better looking.
