Post your non-O scale stuff here!
As a primarily O gauge 3 rail hobbyist I have on occasion had to connect various dissimilar track types. In an effort to be more knowledgeable about other smaller track types I would like to know if track of different code types can be connected if necessary?
Secondly, I would like to know the criteria for selecting a certain code other than matching an existing piece of track.
Thank You,
Mike
Replies sorted oldest to newest
By code, I presume you mean brand of track. Most of the "O" gauge track on the market has adapter tracks that allow various brands to be mated. Or there are track pins that are made to fit different rail sizes.
Many years ago, I had a mixture of O27 and O tubular track. I simply enlarged the O27 rails to accept O pins.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the reply. I believe the code refers to the height of the track. Perhaps similar to the height of 027 to O gauge.
I googled this much
The ‘100’ simply means that the rail is 0.1 inches high. If this were to be scaled up alongside OO Gauge rolling stock, the rail height would be almost 30% higher than its real-life equivalent.
Code 75 track (with a rail height of 0.075 inches) is far more accurate.
If you scaled this up it would this time be 3% lower than the real thing. It’s still not perfect, but it’s much closer to the mark than Set Track.
Codes 100 and 75 are the most common but there are other varieties:
The track you get in any Hornby, Bachmann or Peco starter set is almost definitely Code 100 (sometimes referred to as ‘Set Track’).
Some modellers use a larger code rail on the mainline and a smaller on the sidings, so they can be used on the same layout. I do not think however that there are fish-plates/connectors available to connect different code rails, so you have to do some shimming to connect the two. Look here if you can read Dutch (or use Google translate) to find out all there is to know: https://encyclopedie.beneluxsp..._hoogte_en_materiaal
Regards
Fred
Mike, Being in S gauge we have some experience with differing track codes. On the club's modular layout we could connect Gilbert T track, code 178 with code 148 using specialized adapters. If you are willing to take the effort and time you can join any of the codes, but keep in mind your flange sizes on the wheels, that will limit their use.
Ray
Mike, I'm not an expert, but I know that you usually cannot connect HO tracks made by different companies.
I have Atlas and Piko, neither of which have plastic track beds, and they look identical. But although their rails are the same distance apart they are shaped differently and cannot be connected.
I have Bachman and Roco, which have track beds. But their connecting hooks are dissimilar and I cannot connect them.
Mike, from my club experience this is my opinion. Our club was HO scale and we chose code 83 rail for the mainline but we also had code 100 in places, and some code 70 for sidings. You can have a mix with HO, but that does come with some watch outs. To answer your first question, we used to make our own transition pieces of track by using about 6"-8" of track starting with the higher code. For code 100 to code 83 we used a 6" piece of code 100 track and did some minor filing on the rails to taper it down slightly where it met the code 83. With a little practice, they are easy to make, there is not a lot of filing needed, you just taper the rail head down over a 6"=8" span. For track codes in HO, code 100 is very commonly used for mainlines and everything else. The rail profile is taller and thicker but overall a good choice that is very user friendly and forgiving for railroads that like to run anything. With a little ballasting I still like code 100 and it is readily available. I learned to like the looks of code 83 better, I think code 83 provides a more refined appearance. The downside, I have been told, if some of your rolling stock and locomotive have bulky wheel flanges, then they may have trouble with code 83 because there is less tolerance for wheel flange clearance. This is something to keep in mind if you are considering code 83. Check your locomotive wheel flange standard and for your rolling stock, you may need to upgrade wheel sets. Code 70 is a lighter rail and lower profile yet, but looks very nice in some yards. The downside, is the same with bulky wheel sets with even less tolerance than code 83. I have chosen to stay with code 83 throughout my layout as most of my equipment meets that standard. For simplicity, I like it all to be the same. Another last recommendation is to use the NMRA guage to check all wheel flanges and wheel width to make sure they are within standard. When they are out of tolerance, it can cause a problem with any track.
The prototype mixes rail sizes using compromise joint bars. Here are a couple of commercial products as examples:
https://www.narailproducts.com/compromise-bars/
http://associatedrailproducts.com/products.html
Further searching will turn up more information including drawings.
Another factor is permanent v temporary. I use a mix of track for my HO modules and have no issue since I can solder them together so that the rail height is equal. If temporary, you would have to fashion a transition. Atlas made their track system so that 100 can connect to 83. The top of the rail is the same height above the bottom of the ties. they have joiners that basically have a gap in them so they flex see joiner
Brendan
Mike, your second post's research pretty well summed up what code is. In model railroading code is the height of the rail. If I'm not mistaken code 100 is 0.100". All other codes follow that formula.
In real railroading code refers to pounds per yard, so a 3' section of code 100 weighs 100 pounds. Back in the days of sectional rail the standard length was 33', so a full length piece of code 100 weighed 1100 pounds.
Both tinplate O and S enthusiasts don't usually talk about code. They both need tall rail for the deep flanges on their wheels, perhaps on the order of .250" or code 250, which is unrealistically tall.
If you plan to mix codes when modeling, you can make your own adapting joiners. If you want to go that route, usually what you do is take a joiner of the larger rail and crush one end, shimming if necessary, then soldering the lighter rail in place. I see from the previous post that Atlas makes 100 to 83 joiners, but that may be the only size available.
Many 2 rail modelers in all scales mix rail sizes. I used bigger rail on my mainline, I think code 148 and I used code 125 in my yard. Many of HO buddies use code 83 for mains and code 70 for sidings, especially industry. Some still have code 100 also and often use it in staging where not seen.
You have to bend/modify the rail joiners and pretty much plan on permanent installation. Maybe you don't need solder joints but you can't be connecting and disconnecting continuously.
I addition to bending rail joiners, you often have to shim the smaller track and then ease it down to your road bed to get a smooth transition.
It is not a big deal, more of a fiddly problem on a layout.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
