Track Code(s)

[z4driver]

Hi all,

 

Starting to plan a HO modern era switching layout that I'll be building when I've got my current 009 layout to a suitable stage.

 

I've been thinking about which track and track code to use. I'm think of trying my hand at hand-building the switches using Peco rail as I'm based in the UK, maybe using Fast Track jigs.

 

I would like to use Code 70 rather than 83 but am a bit concerned about wheel compatibility. I don't want locos and cars bouncing over the ties. I know I can change the wheel sets on freight cars, but what about locos? Would this be a real problem or would most modern HO stuff be OK?

 

 

Thanks Lee

Edited February 10, 2020 by z4driver

[steve1]

I have used Micro Engineering Code 70 plain track and switches on 4 different US layouts and never had any problems with wheels hitting ties. Locos are from Athearn, Atlas, Bachmann and even IHC; cars from everywhere but I did replace everything with Atlas or Kadee metal wheels.

 

steve

[Jeff Smith]

Ditto code 70 On30 from ME.  No problem with any Bachmann On30 steam stock which I believe uses HO standards.  There are no chairs just tiny spike heads so nothing for the wheels to hit.

[z4driver]

Thanks for that, looks like Code 70 then

[Andy Reichert]

The results from Fast Track jigs will look nothing like as good as using US PECO code 83 or their new code 70 .  And for just a few turnouts, the jig costs are still very high.  Have you looked at my Proto87 SIG Stores?

 

Andy

 

 

[z4driver]

On 14/02/2020 at 17:39, Andy Reichert said:

The results from Fast Track jigs will look nothing like as good as using US PECO code 83 or their new code 70 .  And for just a few turnouts, the jig costs are still very high.  Have you looked at my Proto87 SIG Stores?

 

Andy

 

 

 

Hi Andy, thanks for your reply. I haven't looked at your store. Do you have a link?

 

Regarding track, I'm looking at a switching layout so locos will be running at slow speed. From what I've read, mass produced turnouts don't necessarily conform exactly to the NMRA standard so I was looking at something that would give me that reliability. Having used Peco track exclusively for my previous layouts (albeit in N and 009 not HO), I've never been wholly satisfied with the results. I don't necessarily want to go to fine scale standards as although I don't mind changing car wheels I really don't want to be changing loco wheels. I also like the idea of stock rails that can extended out on to the track running away from the switch rather than every switch being a separate entity so giving smoother flow.

 

I suppose what I'm really saying is that I'm prioritising function over form. I am open to all suggestions as I'm really a novice at taking a hard look at the way I select and lay my track. In the past I've defaulted to Peco without really thinking about it.

 

Cheers Lee

Edited February 16, 2020 by z4driver

[mdvle]

You can find Andy's store here - http://www.proto87.com/

[z4driver]

15 hours ago, mdvle said:

You can find Andy's store here - http://www.proto87.com/

 

Thanks @mdvle

[dave1905]

A lot of the wheel compatibility depends on how you fasten the rail to the ties.

 

If you solder the rails to PC ties, then there is no spike height and conventional NMRA flanges will work on code 55.  If you use Micro Engineering micro spikes (or other brand equivalent), you can operate conventional NMRA flanges down to code 55.  If you use ME small spikes, you are good to code 70, but can have some flange hits on code 55, if the spike heads are too thick.  If you are using spikes larger than ME small, hopefully you are in something like G scale.

 

I use down to code 55 and ME micro spikes on all my new track, I have a yard laid with code 70/55 and ME small spikes.  The only place I have any issues with flange hits are in the code 55 and ME small spike area.  Some of that is due to the ME spike heads rusting (after getting wet during ballasting) and getting "taller".

 

If you are using other than NMRA flanges, then all bets are off, you'll just have to test it.