Recommendations

Short of a specific prototype that you're trying to model, a good rule of thumb is:

Code 83 - mainline

Code 70 - branchline, siding, yard ladder, spurs off the main

Code 55 - spurs off branchline/siding, tracks off yard ladder

I have all three on my HO Siskiyou Line and have no problem working with any of these sizes. You do need to consider transition joints - I discuss my solution in Issue 4's MRH QAT section.

Rails

BH -

I am sure as Joe and others here will tell you, that once you weather your rail (and ties), that it will appear to "shrink" even more to the naked eye, even if it is purely a optical illusion. Even C-100 rail and roadbed will look better (but in my opinion, still not great) once you weather it.

I wish I had thought of going with C-70 when I built my layout, though I would have run into many difficulties laying track (because of my turnouts being Peco C-100, as I started building before their C-83 line came out). If I had handlaid my turnouts, then I wouldn't have had said problems, but alsas, the layout would never had gotten built then! (trust me!).

Personally, I think that only on a smaller, more detailed layout is working in with all three rail codes worth the "trouble" of laying it all in the "right" places, but again, that is just my opinion. I personally know the visual benefits, I just don't have the patience! Lord knows if you do go that route though, you'll have a real nice layout when it is done!

RAH

Color me different

Over time, the color of rails will vary depending on the level of use.  Lightly used rails will tend to be reddish/brownish/rusty color, while heavily used rails will have darker, brownish/blackish color.  Peruse actual rail or color prototype photos for the era modeled for examples (like friction-bearing wheel sets resulted in an "oilier" appearance to well-traveled rail compared to roller bearings).  Color will have as much or more visual effect compared to different rail sizes.  I recommend simultaneous use of these practices.

Thanks

I am not trying to model a specific prototype with this chainsaw layout.  This layout is more about learning and doing than it is about modeling prototypical railroads or operations.  I hope it is a learning experience and a chance to improve my skills.

Beyond that, it's an introduction to model railroading for my boys.

The recommendations you offer make sense Joe.

Just a couple of questions.  Would the interchange typically use a heavier rail than the line it connects with or could the interchange and my mainline be the same code without looking strange?

Craig from DMW tells me that code 55 flex track is currently not available from the manufacturer/distributor.  I wonder if this is temporary?  If I can't get code 55 flex, does it make more sense to just use code 70 where I would have used 55, or should I switch to using code 100 for the mainline and work down from that rail?

I'd go with 83 and 70

I'd go with code 83 and code 70 if you can't get code 55 right now.

I would just add a couple more points.

On your question about building a turnout with different codes between the straight and diverging route, I don't know if it is possible; but I would not try.  I think you would create problems.  When the train went through the points, it would either bounce or drop depending on which size rail you used for the points.

As far as your question about rail sizes for various track usage and the problem of two switches close together one being mainline track while the other is branchline with no room between to transition, don't reduce the size from mainline to branch in that location.  As a prototype example, the U.P. mainline that used to be S.P. in the San Gabriel Valley here in the L.A. area there are a bunch of industries industry spurs coming off the main ( I think U.P. now uses it as a branch line since the U.P. mainline runs parrallel to the ex-S.P. main less than one mile away).  If I remember correctly none of the track size changes, but the ballast is "mainline ballast" under all of the switches, but immediately after the switches on the diverging route, the ballast tapers down to no ballast.  Most of the industries have pavement where the tracks run.  There is one lumber yard that receives quite a few carloads of lumber from the U.P. and I don't remember if their yard is paved or on dirt.  The point is that I don't remember ever seeing ballast under industrial trackage.

Generally, most of your derailment problems will occur in switches.  Having any sort of uneven base to a switch that would result in any sort of twist no matter how small, will create derailment problems.  Therefore, don't change grades or rail profile in a switch.  Start any transitions to a different size rail or off of the roadbed to dirt or pavement after the switch.  

Ah yes, color too!

Mark,

Thanks for that reminder.  The best effect will without a doubt come from using varied rail size and weathering the track to suit it's application.  My era is late 1980's early 90's.

I am tempted to just use a couple of rail codes, 83 and 70, simply because this is a chainsaw layout after all.  With a combination of rail size, weathering and different roadbed profiles it sounds like I could make it look good even without using code 55.

Further thoughts guys?

More Points

Yes, I don't know if it could be done either, but in thinking more about it after reading your post, I agree it would probably be a bad idea.  I assume one would have to shim the smaller rail up, so what would be the point really?

Beside that, since I will be hand laying turnouts for the first time, why make it more difficult than it has to be, right?

The only reason to use code 55 is for testing.

On your chainsaw, you don't need to use code 55.  However, if you are planning to use it on your permanent layout, I would reccommend using it on one or two spurs just to get a feel for it and to see how well your equipment operates on it.  As I understand it, the purpose of the "chainsaw" is to test concepts, and techniques, and get any bugs worked out of your layout in the design stages before you start building your permanent layout.  With that in mind I would at least build a couple of turnouts and a couple of spurs with code 55 just to make sure you get no surprises when you build the permanent layout.

On your chainsaw, you don't

I agree.  But how about trying a little handlaying of code 55 rail as it is very easy if no turnouts are involved, that is, use handlaid code 55 rails on the tails of industrial spurs.

On your chainsaw, you don't

Mark, you read my mind.  After reading Ralph's post I was thinking, "maybe that would be the time to try handlaying track...

I'll go ahead and use 70 & 83 for everything but a few spurs.  I think you are right that it would be a good introduction to hand laying track.

C-110 to C-83, to C-70

No, not Bingo numbers, but rather I had the issue of transitioning from each of these three rail codes on my layout, and in about all of 1ft!

I had to use a Peco C-100 curved turnout to get around a lolly column, and in order to mate to a section of layout that I inherited off a friend that had to be dismantled that was built with C-70 rail, I used a piece of ME     C-83 rail to "step down" between the two. I used those trusty Atlas "transition" rail joiners at each code change. Seems to work smoothly enough, my first shakedown session is next month, and that will be the true test!

RAH

CVT

May I suggest that you consider Central Valley Model Works tie strips.  This is the same company that makes the switch ties that Joef uses.   They have "mainline" and "branchline" tie spacing, have great detail, and will accommodate code 83 and 70, as the strips are self-gauging.  The detail is the same as on their switch tie strips.  Their instructions indicate that you can use code 55, also, but pay a bit more attention to gauge, as the base is smaller than 83 or 70.

Laying CVT takes just slightly longer time than using flex track.  When I costed it out, buying 50 ft. packs of CVT tie strips, both mainline and branchline, and 99 ft. bundles of ME rail in code 83 and 70, it was cheaper than buying ME flex track.

I used to hand lay with wood ties, but this is faster (no jig is necessary), and better looking (tie plate detail is molded on).  Satisfaction level is the same.  And "hand-laying" bragging rights certainly exist!

Regarding interchange track:  rail size is typically the same as secondary track (siding or yard), as they are traversed at low speeds.

"Hang" cast spike/tie-plate detail

I think using individually-laid wooden ties would be easier to achieve this look of an industrial spur compared to plastic tie strips.  Besides, at the usual 100 feet or more prototypical distance for viewing, scale-sized tie-plate/spike detail is virtually invisible.

individual-looking ties

While land-goop hasn't been applied between tracks, and ballast has yet to be installed and rail painted, this photo shows how individually-laid wooden ties look individual due to the staining process. The rail is code 70 for HO standard gauge and code 70 and 55 for HOn3.

Modifying flex for spurs

A tip from a Bill Darnaby article a while back is to remove a few ties from each piece of flext track that is going to be used for branches, spurs, etc. Then spread out the remaining ties (by cutting apart their connections from one another) before laying the flex track.

I personally really like the way this looks and although it is a bit time consuming to cut all the under-rail connections, I think it's worth it. To me, this makes a spur look less-used even more effectively than smaller rail with the same even tie spacing. You can slightly angle the ties, nip off some ends, etc. for more variety in appearance.

But that's me, I just don't notice the differences in rail heights as much as most people claim to. Tie spacing and coloring variety, on the other hand, is something I always pick up on.

There's no point to code 100 in HO

Personally, I think code 100 track should be banned in HO.  It's just another thing that just won't go away, even though it's unrealistic and has no place on a scale layout.  There's nothing you can do with code 100 that can't be done with a scale rail size.  At our club we use code 100 flex on the hidden track, but nowhere else, and that's only because it tends to be cheaper than code 83 or what-have-you.  I suspect that if code 100 disappeared the price of 83 or 70 would drop since they would sell more to fill the void, and people getting into the hobby wouldn't be tempted to buy more code 100 to perpetuate the cycle.  Well, at least we have the choice of scale rail; it's just too bad we have to pay a premium for what should be sold as standard.

So far as the appearance goes, I for one can spot code 100 in a photo right away; it makes a layout look toy-like, in my opinion.  We use code 83 on our mainline at the club, and it looks a tad heavy to me, and it actually is.  CP uses 115 lb rail on its mainlines usually, but code 83 is closer to 130 lb rail.  We should be looking for code 80 or 81 for future mainline track.  And the contrast between our mainline and the code 70 we use most other places is pretty obvious, to me, anyway.

Great Tip!

That is a great tip Byron!  Thanks for sharing that.

I'll have to see about the hand laying.  I tend to gravitate towards the CV tie strip method as it does not require a costly jig but I also see Mark's point about the individual ties.

Learning lots here guys.  Thanks!

No point to code 100 in HO

Jurgen,

Obviously a subject that is a bone of contention for you, LOL!

I agree the price of code 83 should be the same as code 100...actually I think it should be a bit cheaper since there is less material used in the code 83.

If code 83 is still a bit heavy then I don't want to use any code 100 on the layout.  I have some Atlas code 100 on hand that could eventually find it's way into service in a staging situation too but that's about it.

If I had a lot of staging to do, at the very least I think I would use Atlas code 83 for that because in 100 lots, it is quite a bit less costly than ME code 83.

Code 83 vs code 70

Here's some ballasted and weathered track on my HO Siskiyou Line - the main is code 83 and has a grimy, greasy look to it, while the code 70 siding is lower, and has a more dirty, rusty look to it.

In photos like this, the rail size difference is quite noticeable.

I love ME track ...

83 vs 70 Photo

Thanks for posting that photo Joe.  That really illustrates how rail size, roadbed and weathering can be combined to visually set two side by side tracks apart.

I really like the look of ME track too.  The more I hear about working with it the more I am looking forward to trying it.

Can't wait to assemble my first turnout too.

code 40

At my old Westport I'Ve had code 83 for the main, code 70 for siding and yard and two storage tracks (together with one turnout) with code 55.

Now I'm into H0n3 and I build with code 70 for standard track, code 55 for narrow gauge and even with code 40 for some spurs.

Wolfgang

Ballast composition

Hey guys,

In regards to Joe's picture on the difference between Code83 and Code 70, I couldn't help but notice the ballast color. It appears to have an overall gray color with bits of black and maybe even some pink. Overall, it strikes me as a pink granite type of ballast, but I wanted to check with the source on this one.

Whatever the color was that was attempted, it looks great! Joe, could we have the formula? Maybe you have done an article on mixing ballast colors/manufacturers to obtain a specific look?

Thanks for the ballasting help.

Sincerely,

Kirk

I use the three as Joe

I use the three as Joe suggested, with one caveat: For hidden trackage as in staging or helix that you want to be absolutely bullet-proof I strongly suggest using code 100 fully tuned up before covering. This removes 99% of the likelyhood of derails, providing all your rolling stock is NMRA weighted, tuned up with metal wheels and KD couplers. Enjoy, don't cuss afterward! John Colley, Port Townsend, WA