What does the track code mean?
Example:
Code 100
Code 80
Code 148
Thanks
Super Chicken
Inches.
Add a decimal point.
In large scale 332 is generally .332" tall rail, 250 is 1/4", etc.
ok that makes sence but what is a good higth???
why do we have the choice? is it just for looks???
The standard “G scale” rail size is 332. 250 is also available, and maybe some other sizes.
The main reason for smaller sized rails is for a more realistic appearance. The downside is that smaller rails may not hold up as well to being stepped on, and also may require wheels with smaller flanges. Also, there’s not as many track products available in the smaller size.
I think most folks in “G scale” use the standard size.
BTW, real railroads use a variety of sizes. Mainline track which gets a lot of heavy traffic will have very large rails. Branchlines may have smaller, lighter rail. Spurs will often have even smaller rails.
One more thing… if you buy sectional track, you’ll find it comes in “Euro” or “USA” styles. The “Euro” style has large, widely spaced ties and is often used to represent narrow guage track in 1:20 or 1:22 scales. The “USA” style has smaller ties spaced more closely together, and is used to represent standard gauge in 1:29 and 1:32 scale.
Taller rail is more resistant to vertical bending…which is good and bad.
I prefer the rail to follow the ground contour, which 332 will not readily do.
Oh, it does in long sweeps, but generally it shows at the joiner with a kink.
Try to get a smooth vertical curve with 332 and you will be pulling hair out.
Daniel,
at the risk of causing offence…
have you checked out the ‘Newbies start here’ thread?
We all had to start somewhere but some of your questions don’t need answers here, all they need is 3 minutes on Google to get all of the info you need.
I’m sorry if this posting sounds harsh & I don’t want to discourage a newcomer to LargeScale but just about everything you’ve use 23 posts on is available in exhaustive detail with 3 minutes net research or buying a half-dozen back issues of Garden Railways magazine.
Rene’, you cutie, I apologise if I have stepped on toes here but frankly there is SO! much info now available on the net that anyone who hasn’t done even rudimentary research really doesn’t deserve a civil answer.
Flam suit donned… 
PS, so sorry I couldn’t get up to Milwaukee on my recent visit to the States, my welcome to the Land of the Free was the worst cold I’ve had in 20 years!!! so I spent our second week visiting the family in bed using 5 boxes of Kleenex per day! 
Phil, sorry about your visit, sometimes that’s life.
I do agree with you somewhat with the research bit. I’m all for helping somebody get started, but I do admit that 20 posts covering what is already covered in the "Beginners Start Here’ thread is a bit much. Only goes to show what a bad idea it is to get rid of the GARDEN thread, if I had posted anything about gardening on the general topic forum it would be on page 3 now.
Superchicken, pay us grumpy people no mind, you keep asking questions…
Sorry to hijack this thread, but I understand. I knew you probably had tons of things to do anyway. Sorry about getting sick. I hope everything is back to normal now.
“Research” means different things to different people. Some like to ask questions as they come to mind, others read to the depth of the Library of Congress.
But what you get back when you ask questions is many answers of your choosing. I started on my less than humble opinions at:
http://railway.skeenapacific.ca/TechnicalPagesBegin.htm
Hey, Dan’l, we all started asking questions somewhere. I was lucky enough to have a large retailer of garden trains nearby and a club of people who have enough opinions to swamp this forum.
http://www.gvgrc.com
Not sure where Neet’s Bay is but I’m guessing that asking on the internet is more likely to get answers than at the nearest large scale train store… When in doubt, ask.[:D]
Please note, I changed the font for whomever is worried about font size[}:)]
As i undestand it 250 is more true to scale but in my opinion for my application 332 is the best. I am talking about having good good holding power and not having too many derailments it is also better when usimg LGB track contacts for automated running which i am getting into.
rgds ian
Skeenapac -you make me laugh with your large font
Hey, TheRockModeler,
Glad to have raised a smile.[:o)]
This does seem a little more reasonable.
Someone out there needs to realise that some people
(not necessarily me)[;)] change to this
scale because they can’t see HO anymore
(let alone ‘N’ scale!) I guess this post could go
on that other thread…
I found Neet’s Bay. You NEED to use heavy weight
track for when the bears step on it.[:D]
After trying different brands, I settled on LGB which,
while it is more expensive, does colour nicely,
solders more easily and has been the most rugged.
I believe that the largest G-gauge track ever used is 332 and the smallest is 197 (which Old Pullman apparently doesn’t make anymore). I’m using code 143 but O gauge RRs can use larger such as code 215, which also, ironically, is used for G gauge (215 or 205 would, I imagine, be popular for dual-gauge lines)
I, too, have settled into using the LGB “flex” track. I like the way it “weathers”, very easy to clean up for soldering. I like to weather things before using them. When I plan on doing some “construction” I’ll go buy a board or two, slice it up, throw it onto the “lumber pile” and then grab the wood I’m actually using from the “lumber pile”, that way it has discolored, and warped nicely before being used. I do the same for the rails. Another thing I like about the LGB track is that it is “elephant proof”