RevStew Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) Whilst browsing some old books from the on the subject of railways, in particular ones with high quality black and white photos of the days of steam, I was struck by the way the track stood out in a view from the photographers eye level, and (I'm not joking), how much it reminded me of the more 'obvious' side profile of code 100 rail. It's quite hard to describe what I'm attempting to get across, but In the old photos from this POV, the real rails look, if anything, more toy like than the representations in finescale. I wonder if in scaling down the real rail to say, nicely laid P4 standard, the visual impact loses some of it's 'Pop'? Has anyone else noticed this? (Photo from the Mike Morant collection) . Edited June 2, 2018 by RevStew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravensdmufan Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 I know I will be very much in a minority here - but I actually prefer the look of Code 100! Particularly concrete sleepered track when rail sides are painted and it is well ballasted. Plus I can run my older stuff together with modern stock. And I really can't face relaying the whole layout! 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevStew Posted June 2, 2018 Author Share Posted June 2, 2018 Cravens DMU fan. That looks amazing, it could easily be a photo. Very nice indeed. The cable troughs however make me shudder. As an S&T apprentice for BR, I was carrying a signal head between two of us along the cess, and as I was at the rear I tripped and fell and the signal head jammed my finger between it and an open trough, breaking my finger and tearing the nail off... I now have a slightly fatter finger as a permanent reminder of my brief career on the railways! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 I have laid a few test pieces & made modified code 100 (sleeper/6' way spacing) which has made a big improvement, but similarly modified code 75 looks better to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevStew Posted June 2, 2018 Author Share Posted June 2, 2018 I have considered the fact that people modify the spacing of code 75/100 etc, taking every 5th sleeper out and shuffling them etc, but part of me wants it to look like model railway track. I like that it is a model, and I want to look at a model railway when I build it, rather then a small ultra realistic scale model of a railway, if that makes sense? In the same way that Dublo and tinplate 'O' has it's charm. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Its an interesting concept. I think the height of the rail above the sleeper is greater with bullhead than flat bottom so maybe from some angles code 100 looks better than 75 in representing the real thing. Obviously right down at track level side on code 100 is more to scale than 75 for main lines relaid with 21st century heavier section rails. Cravensdmufan's track looks brilliant. To be honest the points let down Code 100 in my opinion, and the lack of rail chairs, I have some old Hornby code 100 flexi track with really chunky fastenings which actually looks like bullhead when looking along the track but it looks really odd when mixed with Peco points so is confined to the hidden bits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted June 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 2, 2018 Obviously right down at track level side on code 100 is more to scale than 75 for main lines relaid with 21st century heavier section rails. It's a couple of years since I did the calculation, but as far as I recall, BS113a flat bottom works out at almost exactly code 83 in 4mm scale. Code 75 is therefore closer to scale than code 100, though this doesn't mean it will look better. Code 75 is correct for 95lb per yard bullhead rail, but as David says, the chairs hold bullhead well above the sleeper and the ballasting in the pictures posted by the OP accentuates the gap under the rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish_R_M Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 The nearest profile for RP54 real rail (I think that's the designation), is code 83 rather than code 75. I mean, who's going to excited over 8 thousands of an inch? (insert smutty joke if you wish) Personally, I prefer Code 100 as it's easier to file and work with. I use it on 21mm stuff and it has a certain visual "heft" that 75 just doesn't convey. But I'm an oddball, so forgive my use of code 100 on proto track gauge...! RM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevStew Posted June 3, 2018 Author Share Posted June 3, 2018 Thank you all so much for your input so far. I'm sure good old code 100 has it's adherents in those for whom track is more of a means to an end, rather than an end in it's self. Choice of track is just another box to tick off the list for those poor souls like me who have no burning desire for any particular location, scale or period. We must agonise over those choices until something seems 'right'. For me it's looking like 4mm scale, OO gauge, and some sweating still to be done over period and location. Perhaps if I spend some money the urge to change my mind may not be as strong! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted June 8, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 8, 2018 I'm afraid I regard Code 100 very much as a compromise that I accept rather than the appearance I want, and am considering relaying my layout in chaired bullhead Peco code 75. The attraction here is the chairs and the bullhead, though, along with the sleeper spacing, rather than the size of the rail. I am aware that the close H0 sleeper spacing assists in creating the optical illusion of longer stretches of track when you are viewing them from end to end, and the conversion to correct sleeper spacing will make my already small layout look even smaller! The point about having a model railway that looks like a model railway for it's own sake and in it's own right is an interesting one, though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E3109 Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 Just my two pennorth, for me it's all about the sleeper spacing rather than the height of the rails. Just a tad of spacing out improves the appearance from what is essentially 1:87 HO, not sure how that works with point work although I believe it's possible. I'm into Code 75 at the mo, and I got a yard of the new Peco bullhead stuff for comparison. It looks ace but if anything, its relative accuracy seems, if anything, to accentuate the 'narrow gauge' nature of OO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 . I'm into Code 75 at the mo, and I got a yard of the new Peco bullhead stuff for comparison. It looks ace but if anything, its relative accuracy seems, if anything, to accentuate the 'narrow gauge' nature of OO. I've noticed that about the more "accurate" OO track. My theory is that the sleepers are to 1:76, but the rail spacing is 1:87. So the extra length of the sleepers highlights the gauge. I've never measured anything to confirm or refute that, though.To my eyes, the best appearance for OO is to increase the sleeper spacing on conventional peco track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 Cravens DMU fan. That looks amazing, it could easily be a photo...Ermm... it is a photo??!! Anyway I'm a great fan of Code 100 rail, too, although maybe not as Peco intended. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted June 8, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 8, 2018 There is also the point that the overscale height of the rail makes the already narrow gauge of 00 track look even narrower... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davknigh Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 It depends. If you are modelling the present then code 100 FB might be close enough, if you are modelling pre-BR or a lesser branch line then not so much. As stated elsewhere in the thread, chaired rail looks higher ‘cos it sits above the sleepers and there is a visible gap. In HO code 100 is regarded as best for heavy duty mainline running. Cheers, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevStew Posted June 8, 2018 Author Share Posted June 8, 2018 An interesting parallel is that in the world of scale model aircraft, the propellers are not scale, but they are not derided for that. They also regularly scale up the empennage in order to provide stable flight characteristics. Some participants in railway modeling do get somewhat fixated with a few mm here and there. It's very admirable. The way I see it is that they produce the amazing models so I don't have to!! One thing I never see modeled, and something that exists seemingly everywhere on the real stuff, is grease! During my first week in S&T the P-way gang took great delight in covering my lovely new orange overalls in stiff black grease! Oh, and the area between the rails being covered in streaks of toilet roll! Model that, I dare you! RevStew. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewlisle Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) Totally agree. I started 'Crewlisle' 45 years ago with minor modifications to the layout to the present date. I used Peco Code 100 track & eventually installed a total of 30 Code 100 Insulfrog points as that was all that was available. Over the intervening years I modified them to live frogs. It is only in the last 5 years I started to replace all my points as they had worn out. Many modellers on this forum think I should be burnt at the stake because I state that Peco Code 100 Electrofrog points can be used straight out of the box without the need for polarity switching & I have been DCC for 10 years! The only polarity switches on my layout are for my live diamond, converted from Insulfrog to live frogs.I have exhibited at the NEC (5 times), Ally Pally twice, Hornby's Great Electric Train Show & local shows. I can count on one hand the number of point failures I have had over the years (both at home & at exhibitions) & these have only been in sidings. My track is laid on 1.5mm white polystyrene wall insulation, ballasted, spray painted with a dark grey ballast colour with a quick light pass down the centre of the track with Humbrol 'Track Colour'. I have lost count of the number of times visitors to exhibitions who have asked if it is Code 75. This is probably because the sides of the rails are painted thus disguising the height of the rail.As many have stated in previous comments, it is robust & reliable - especially the points. You have to trade off realism/scale for reliability. I wrote the above Comment 67 inreply to Comment 59 in the Peco Forum under the heading "Is Code 100 still used on 'serious' layouts?" I think my answer points out the good things about Code 100. Peter ' Edited July 3, 2018 by Crewlisle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm81 Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Oh, and the area between the rails being covered in streaks of toilet roll! Model that, I dare you! RevStew. Never dare a fool.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted July 12, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) As well as Crewlisle, I'd sheepishly (sorry) point you to RHY's layouts; very fine modelling indeed with Peco code 100 and tension lock couplings. These are standard on my own effort, Cwmdimbath, along with insulfrogs, though if I was starting now I would be considering Code 75 chaired bullhead with the new wiring. I may even replace the scenic area trackwork with this completely at some future stage, but for now I am very happy with my running and will live with the appearance. Edited July 12, 2018 by The Johnster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now