Trackwork: Going from Code 100 to Code 75

[srihaggis]

Hi all

I have decided to scrap my previous layout (actually gave it all away to a friend), which was all code 100. On the new project, i'm looking to go down the route of code 75. (00 Scale)

 

Now trackwork isn't something I've ever really took a great deal of interest in, I understand 75 looks more prototypical, but I understand that it can cause running issues with certain types of stock, typically much older stock.

 

How would I know if there were some items of stock I own that would be incompatible with code 75 rail? Is there a certain flange size I need to look at or is there more to it, eg the need to re-wheel everything?

 

Most of my stock has been produced in the last 10-15 years. Sorry if this sounds an odd question but i'd sooner ask than go and buy a load of track and nothing work.

 

Many thanks

Kyle

Edited November 11, 2019 by srihaggis
Clarifying Scale

[Pete the Elaner]

Anything from the mid-90s should be fine.

The only things which I have to ban from my layout are earlier Lima Mk3s. The flanges on these look excessively large. I have other Lima Mk3s which are no trouble.

Older Hornby stock was made a lot finer a lot earlier.

 

Change only because you can see a difference. Don't do it because others tell you it looks better.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Beware old tooling used for modern representations! I have a Hornby 156 in 'ONE' rainbow livery and that clatters along the chairs of code 75  would guestimate that was a model from 2005 at the earliest, but then I've also run an early 90s Hornby cartic on code 75 and that had no issues.

 

Most 'recent' OO rtr is generally fine. Replacing pizza cutters with newer wheelsets on older stock is easy enough and does make a good visual difference to them... Lima used a much shorter axle length though so be aware of that.

[Harlequin]

You could buy a length of Code 75 and maybe a turnout and push your suspect stock along it on a tabletop.

 

For a very small financial outlay you would then know for sure.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Harlequin

[srihaggis]

Thanks for the info chaps. I'm only changing because I need to buy all my trackwork again anyway, so thought i'd give it a try and to my eye it looks marginally better, though it'll be a couple of months before buying physical rail because I am rebuilding the boards too, but i'll certainly buy a sample of track next time i'm in town.

 

Fortunately I don't own any Lima stuff (at all), though I do have some ex Lima, now Hornby branded MK3s from 2015 (Midland Mainline Teal release). 

[Hitchin Junction]

If you don't want to caught out by model trains and model track not being compatible, it's a good idea to spend a little time finding out out how wheels and track work together to be problem free. The US NMRA website has a brief description that is easy to read and understand. 

 

Tim

[Robert Stokes]

If you are going to change to code 75, which I suspect will be fine for rolling stock of that age, you might consider using Peco code 75 bullhead track if it is right for the era you model. It is true that it is more expensive than code 75 flat bottom track but it looks really good.  There are only large radius points to go with it at this stage but I think medium radius and slip points will be available soon.

[Dungrange]

4 hours ago, srihaggis said:

I understand (Code) 75 looks more prototypical

 

Code 75 is the scale dimension for older bullhead rail (which Peco now produce, albeit a limited range at the moment).  Modern UK flat bottom rail should actually be Code 82 (ie 0.082" in height), so the Code 75 flat bottom range that Peco produce is actually under scale (but not by as much as the code 100 track is over scale).  Peco do produce Code 82 rail in their Individulay range, but not a ready to lay range of track components, so to get scale height rail flat bottom track-work you actually have to build it yourself.

 

I think the under scale nature of the Code 75 flat bottom rail is fine because we have an under scale gauge. 

[srihaggis]

All interesting comments. For pointwork, I only use large radius anyway so that won't be a problem, i'd sooner it look right than to be accurate, if that makes sense.

The layout i'm doing is totally fictitious location wise, but utilising rolling stock of the Derby area from 1990-2005, so I can get away with modellers licence as to the type of rail used for that part - I'm struggling to think of anywhere locally with bullhead, i'll have to look on flickr - I seem to recall Derby station area having bullhead in the very early 90s.

 

 

[wasdavetheroad]

11 hours ago, srihaggis said:

All interesting comments. For pointwork, I only use large radius anyway so that won't be a problem, i'd sooner it look right than to be accurate, if that makes sense.

The layout i'm doing is totally fictitious location wise, but utilising rolling stock of the Derby area from 1990-2005, so I can get away with modellers licence as to the type of rail used for that part - I'm struggling to think of anywhere locally with bullhead, i'll have to look on flickr - I seem to recall Derby station area having bullhead in the very early 90s.

 

 

How about looking at Peco code 83

[Poor Old Bruce]

To make your plain line look a bit more realistic you could cut away all the webs between the sleepers and space out the sleepers to about a 10mm pitch. It's a PITA to do but it does look better. Depends how much track there is on your planned layout before you start gibbering.

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

To make your plain line look a bit more realistic you could cut away all the webs between the sleepers and space out the sleepers to about a 10mm pitch. It's a PITA to do but it does look better. Depends how much track there is on your planned layout before you start gibbering.

I have done some work on this & find 10mm too far apart.

Peco's standard is 7mm

I counted the number of sleepers under a Mk3 once. Spacing the sleepers at 8.5mm centres made them look correct.

Branch lines & yards have sleepers spaced out a little further. 9.5mm looks suitably different to the. Peco & C&L use 9mm spacing for their bull head range.

It is worth noting that bearers on pointwork are a little closer. You can't re-space Peco's point bearers without a lot of surgery. Their FB range looks ok alongside track spaced at 8.5mm but would 9.5mm spacing provide too much contrast?

 

Re-spacing sleepers does take extra time & effort. I can do 1 length of flexi in around 40 minutes instead of 5. It also eliminates any strengthening provided by the webbing, so track is better glued rather than using unsightly pins.

If that sounds like too much effort then don't even look at re-spaced track. Walk away before you can spot the difference or else un-spaced sleepers will annoy you.

 

If you can justify using bullhead then this already looks good & needs no modification. It was used everywhere until the 50s/60s, then gradually replaced on main lines, but remained on many branch lines until the 80s/90s. It is still used in many yards & sidings.

[Poor Old Bruce]

There's still a bit of bullhead track in daily use by express passenger trains on the curve from St. Andrew's Junction to Proof House Junction in Birmingham. Not exactly a high speed bit of line though.

[TRAILRAGE]

be carefull with the slf-100 code 75 track as they changed the sleeper moulds (presumably the moulds were worn) a few years back meaning that even on some of the later Hornby stock the wheel flanges do rub on the sleepers  90% of m Lima stock ran on the older SLF-100 track but wont work on the later stuff.

 

[srihaggis]

Interestingly I was planning to re-space the sleepers on the straight sections of the layout scenic parts anyway for the more realistic photo opportunity - I wouldn't ever look too closely on a tight bend.

I'll be at Warley next week so i'll see if I can grab a piece of code 75 for testing purposes. 

 

@TRAILRAGE - which Hornby stock in particular have issues with the wheels rubbing?

 

 

[TRAILRAGE]

23 hours ago, srihaggis said:

Interestingly I was planning to re-space the sleepers on the straight sections of the layout scenic parts anyway for the more realistic photo opportunity - I wouldn't ever look too closely on a tight bend.

I'll be at Warley next week so i'll see if I can grab a piece of code 75 for testing purposes. 

 

@TRAILRAGE - which Hornby stock in particular have issues with the wheels rubbing?

 

 

So far I have 2 Hornby 73 one of which is absolutely fine, the other was terrible so I re-wheeled with some spare 4-VEP wheels and now runs fine, which in its self is daft as I have 3        4-VEP. BR Blue and NSE  rub, B/G doesn't!   My 59, 2-BIL, 2-HAL, 5-BEL and 153's  are fine. My boys 66's and Pendolino are  also fine  I also have a couple of 90's which appear to be ok.  I have read of people having trouble with their 156's as well. 

 

Cheers Trailrage

[srihaggis]

On 17/11/2019 at 21:37, TRAILRAGE said:

So far I have 2 Hornby 73 one of which is absolutely fine, the other was terrible so I re-wheeled with some spare 4-VEP wheels and now runs fine, which in its self is daft as I have 3        4-VEP. BR Blue and NSE  rub, B/G doesn't!   My 59, 2-BIL, 2-HAL, 5-BEL and 153's  are fine. My boys 66's and Pendolino are  also fine  I also have a couple of 90's which appear to be ok.  I have read of people having trouble with their 156's as well. 

 

Cheers Trailrage

 

Thanks for clarifying - I don't have any of the models you mention, so hopefully i'll be fine.