Bachmann Online Forum

Discussion Boards => HO => Topic started by: lameracer40 on April 05, 2013, 09:06:07 AM

Title: track type; which is better?
Post by: lameracer40 on April 05, 2013, 09:06:07 AM
I'm getting back into railroading after 30 years and see different types of track. I don't want to use the E-Z track and I have several pieces of regular track but it is different in color. Which is better, nickel-silver or steel and how can you tell the difference? How many styles are there?
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 05, 2013, 09:30:03 AM
there are 3 different metals commonly used for rail. they are brass which is golden in colour, steel which is a dull silver-grey, and nickel silver which is shiny silver in colour. of the 3 nickel silver is by far the best.

brass oxidizes with a non conductive coating and must be cleaned often. steel can rust and is almost impossible to solder feeder wires to. nickel silver can be soldered and stays cleaner than the others. best of all, its oxide conducts electricity. ns has become the standard, and is available from all makers of track.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: lameracer40 on April 05, 2013, 09:37:03 AM
Ok that was a big help but one more thing, Is NS magnetic? All of the shiny track that I have is magnetic.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 05, 2013, 09:42:23 AM
no.

if it is magnetic you have steel.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: lameracer40 on April 05, 2013, 09:45:02 AM
Thank you very much for your help.  :)
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rogertra on April 05, 2013, 05:05:42 PM
Simple answers, in no particular order: -

Nickle silver rail, nothing else will do.

Code 83 or smaller for realism.  No need for code 100 rail these days except perhaps in hidden staging where realism is not important and code 100 is slightly cheaper.

Quality flex track and never set track.

No. 6 switches or larger if buying quality flex track but nothing less than a No. 5 is space is tight.

Or, hand lay your own track either with or without commercial templates.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 05:33:23 PM
Lameracer40, steel is definitely bottom of the barrel and I would not purposely purchase it.  And I agree with you on not wanting to use EZ track.   
N/S the best that can be bought now, but that said, there is nothing wrong with using brass if you keep it clean which is not as difficult as people can make it out to be.  Especially if you run trains on it with any frequency.  Brass is also a better conductor than N/S.  That also said, if you are restarting from scratch, the way to go is probably buy N/S, unless money is a heavy consideration.
Also, nothing wrong with using "snap" or sectional track as opposed to feeling forced to use flex track.  A lot depends on what you want to layout.  A longstanding manufacturer, whose name begins with "A" and ends in "S" makes very good sectional and flex track to choose from.
Also, nothing wrong with using Code 100 if you like the look.  Nothing says you have to use Code 83 for any reason other than what you like the look of.
I hope this helps ya.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 05:38:39 PM
PS-And there is nothing wrong with #4 Switches, even if you use 6 axle locos and 50ft cars.  In fact, I don't have problems running those on cheaper "snap switches".
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rogertra on April 05, 2013, 09:18:37 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 05:33:23 PM
Lameracer40, steel is definitely bottom of the barrel and I would not purposely purchase it.  And I agree with you on not wanting to use EZ track.   
N/S the best that can be bought now, but that said, there is nothing wrong with using brass if you keep it clean which is not as difficult as people can make it out to be.  Especially if you run trains on it with any frequency.  Brass is also a better conductor than N/S.  That also said, if you are restarting from scratch, the way to go is probably buy N/S, unless money is a heavy consideration.
Also, nothing wrong with using "snap" or sectional track as opposed to feeling forced to use flex track.  A lot depends on what you want to layout.  A longstanding manufacturer, whose name begins with "A" and ends in "S" makes very good sectional and flex track to choose from.
Also, nothing wrong with using Code 100 if you like the look.  Nothing says you have to use Code 83 for any reason other than what you like the look of.
I hope this helps ya.

Guess it depends on your standards.  Do you want a realistic looking model of a railroad, or a railroad model?  I'm probably a model railroad snob and not ashamed of it.  I aim for the standards shown in the articles published in the leading magazines.  However, that's not to say there's anything wrong with a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood and a layout built with code 100 set track.  However, that's not my cup of tea and hasn't been since I was around 16 years old.  Yes, we had model railroads back then.  It's all about what gives the individual modeller the most fun and pleasure.

In my case it's realism, a fixed theme in a set era, 1958 in my case, and closer to scale tolerances.  Hence my suggestion for code 83 minimum rail size, No. 6 switches and flex or hand laid track.

But that's just me and it's not for everyone.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 09:55:27 PM
Yes Roger, I have been aware of your standards and your work is excellent and impressive!  I think you are meeting those standards you have set for yourself.
And I agree, it comes down to ones standards in what they are looking for to be happy with.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 10:02:36 PM
I'll add that 'standards' can be dictated by resources.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rogertra on April 05, 2013, 11:13:17 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 10:02:36 PM
I'll add that 'standards' can be dictated by resources.

Yes, this is very true.  Although I'm of retirement age and do draw two pensions, I'm fit enough to continue working and the sort of work I do is both (generally) fun and not too physical.  I'm a theatre/stage/movie technician and freelance stage lighting designer.  As a result, I do have enough "pocket money" to indulge my hobby,  That and an understanding wife helps.  :)




Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: JNXT 7707 on April 05, 2013, 11:14:07 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 10:02:36 PM
I'll add that 'standards' can be dictated by resources.

Yes, definitely. And never forget it is YOUR railroad, and the only rule is that you must enjoy it  :)

I'll make a plug for Code 100 track though - I find if you have a percentage of older equipment with less than desirable flange contours, it can be more forgiving for running.
I started using it for that reason (and it was less impactful on resources) and have stuck with it. Compared to Code 83, the 83 looks better - but it's not something I notice.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 11:37:09 PM
I always thought stage lighting could be heavy work.

I, like you JNXT, find that 100 suits my eye fine.  I get more focused on the diesel going around the track and the freight.  But like we all said, to each his own.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 05, 2013, 11:49:24 PM
Quote from: JNXT 7707 on April 05, 2013, 11:14:07 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 10:02:36 PM
I'll add that 'standards' can be dictated by resources.

Yes, definitely. And never forget it is YOUR railroad, and the only rule is that you must enjoy it  :)

I'll make a plug for Code 100 track though - I find if you have a percentage of older equipment with less than desirable flange contours, it can be more forgiving for running.
I started using it for that reason (and it was less impactful on resources) and have stuck with it. Compared to Code 83, the 83 looks better - but it's not something I notice.


I find that those older cars should have their wheelsets changed out to something with a better contour. this is even more important than having all metal wheels. those wheelsets with the extra large flanges are usually of very poor quality, often out of guage and cause a whole host of derailment problems. I refuse to run them on my layout for those reasons.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 11:57:07 PM
Jeff, which older cars do you find have these problematic wheel sets?  Which makers?
Thanks.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Doneldon on April 06, 2013, 01:36:47 AM
racer-

I'll go with Code 83 (or 70) nickel-silver flex track on cork roadbed or the new foam-like Woodland Scenics roadbed. Paint the sides of the rail with paint pens (similar to markers) and conceal the roadbed with ballast. Use one size smaller rail for sidings and yards, half-height ballast for sidings and no ballast in yards. Use the longest turnouts you can and avoid the ones labeled "switch" except maybe in yards. Mount the roadbed and rail with plastic-safe construction adhesive (I like Liquid Nails for Projects) and/or clear caulk. This will give you excellent reliability and a prototypical look with less time and labor invested compared to other track systems. There's a reason this is the most used trackage. You can leave the ballast off but it won't look as good. Polish the tops and inside surfaces of your railheads and use the tiniest drop of Conductalube or Wahl's Clipper Oil on the rails to maintain electrical conductivity.

If your present rail is magnetic, it's steel alloy. It will have attached black plastic roadbed. This is not a premium product. It doesn't look too great unless it is carefully ballasted, the rail is too large for anything smaller than the heaviest mainlines in the country and it is fraught with corrosion and conductivity issues. Frankly, I'm not sure why it was made.

Welcome back to the hobby and good luck with your new railroad. Keep us up to date on your progress.

                                                                                                                                 -- D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rogertra on April 06, 2013, 02:10:14 AM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 11:37:09 PM
I always thought stage lighting could be heavy work.


Not really, the electrics all fly so hanging and striking the lights is not difficult though they can be heavyish.  Hauling feeder cable across an arena floor or from the gennie to the distro on a movie shoot, now that can be tough.  But as I designer, I just provide the crew with the lighting plot and they do all the heavy work while I stand and watch. :)
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 06, 2013, 10:47:51 AM
Doc, I have a question for you about the paint pens that maybe you can help me with.  A month or so ago, I bought a Sharpie brand one at a local craft store.  There was no indication of gloss or flat finish.  When I put it on the side of the rail, it dried too glossy for my taste.  Do you have a suggestion on how I might take away the glossy finish?
Thank you.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 06, 2013, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 05, 2013, 11:57:07 PM
Jeff, which older cars do you find have these problematic wheel sets?  Which makers?
Thanks.

the cars most affected are older train set cars with horn hook couplers mostly, along with some very old cars from the 1960s or earlier. these often show up at train shows on tables of used trains.

notorious were tyco, ahm, life-like, model power and Bachmann cars. note that any Bachmann product which has knuckle type couplers probably has the proper rp25 contoured wheels, though they may be plastic.

I find that rp25 contour plastic wheels perform as well as the metal ones, but require more cleaning than metal.

some older ahm cars have metal wheels, which have large flanges. these should be replaced as well.


older cars from atlas, athearn and roundhouse usually come with plastic rp25 wheels. these I run as is and replace the wheels at a later date, the other types get priority when replacing the wheels.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 06, 2013, 11:32:22 AM
Thank you.

I remember you noting at one time (maybe more even than once) that you preferred metal axles to plastic ones as they keep their shape better and keeps the wheels in gauge better.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rogertra on April 06, 2013, 03:22:17 PM
Follow jward's advice, replace ALL your plastic wheel sets with metal ones.  Even the better brands need their plastic wheels replaced.

Metal ones track better. roll better, get less dirty and add needed weight to the cars.

Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: JNXT 7707 on April 06, 2013, 03:29:31 PM

[/quote]

I find that those older cars should have their wheelsets changed out to something with a better contour. this is even more important than having all metal wheels. those wheelsets with the extra large flanges are usually of very poor quality, often out of guage and cause a whole host of derailment problems. I refuse to run them on my layout for those reasons.
[/quote]

Oh I agree wholeheartedly with you, and I do change to a better contour (metal if I have it) as a rule. That said, there are a handful of old 'historic' pieces I have (mostly old locos) that would be problematic to change out the wheels on. I don't run them much, but I like to be able to run them if I like.
Funny thing, I was out for a walk today along a stretch of CSX mainline and as I was checking out the tracks it just jumped out at me that they looked exactly like Code 100 (proportionally of course  ;) ).
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 06, 2013, 04:32:34 PM
modern mainline rail is actually pretty close to code 83. code 100 is taller than anything ever used on the railroads in this country. the closest was the 155lb rail used by the Pennsylvania  and Bessemer railroads in the late steam era. on both lines the rail took incredible abuse: the Bessemer served as a conduit for iron ore from lake erie to the steel mills of Pittsburgh, and backhauled Pennsylvania coal to the lake for transshipment elsewhere. the pennsy ran an incredible amount of trains, over 300 per day over the Allegheny mountains on its 4 track main.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rogertra on April 06, 2013, 06:03:38 PM
Quote from: jward on April 06, 2013, 04:32:34 PM
modern mainline rail is actually pretty close to code 83. code 100 is taller than anything ever used on the railroads in this country. the closest was the 155lb rail used by the Pennsylvania  and Bessemer railroads in the late steam era. on both lines the rail took incredible abuse: the Bessemer served as a conduit for iron ore from lake erie to the steel mills of Pittsburgh, and backhauled Pennsylvania coal to the lake for transshipment elsewhere. the pennsy ran an incredible amount of trains, over 300 per day over the Allegheny mountains on its 4 track main.

300 trains per day?  About what ran through Crewe UK in steam days in a typical eight hour shift.  :)




Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 06, 2013, 06:13:44 PM
Thus far, I've had good luck changing out talgos for car mounted wheel sets of both plastic axle and metal axle type, both with plastic wheels.  While they probably add more crud to the track, I have not yet found the need to go on a rampage and replace them with metal wheels.   I have to say, I do like the metal axles better.  But metal and plastic axle both run fine.  Getting the couplers body mounted, to me, has been the bigger of the 2 pluses.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: JNXT 7707 on April 06, 2013, 06:21:20 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 06, 2013, 06:13:44 PM
Thus far, I've had good luck changing out talgos for car mounted wheel sets of both plastic axle and metal axle type, both with plastic wheels.  While they probably add more crud to the track, I have not yet found the need to go on a rampage and replace them with metal wheels.   I have to say, I do like the metal axles better.  But metal and plastic axle both run fine.  Getting the couplers body mounted, to me, has been the bigger of the 2 pluses.

You are about where I'm at - I'm trying to get metal wheelsets on everything but the cost keeps that goal in the distance. If I could stop acquiring old stuff that need new wheels it would help, but you know how that goes  ::)
I do have the couplers under control though. I obsess about the metal wheels but the plastic will do.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 06, 2013, 06:27:39 PM
I do know.  I am buying "old" "new" stuff all the time-I gotta stop!!
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 06, 2013, 06:44:20 PM
Quote from: rogertra on April 06, 2013, 06:03:38 PM


300 trains per day?  About what ran through Crewe UK in steam days in a typical eight hour shift.  :)






that may be so, but I guarantee pennsy brought more tonnage down the mountain into Altoona (one direction only) in 8 hours than passed through crewe in a whole day, possibly two days. around here, passengers have always been small potatoes compared with freight, especially coal. western Pennsylvania was such a profitable coal field that we had branch lines which saw more trains then than most mainlines do to-day.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rogertra on April 06, 2013, 07:02:21 PM
Quote from: jward on April 06, 2013, 06:44:20 PM
Quote from: rogertra on April 06, 2013, 06:03:38 PM


300 trains per day?  About what ran through Crewe UK in steam days in a typical eight hour shift.  :)


that may be so, but I guarantee pennsy brought more tonnage down the mountain into Altoona (one direction only) in 8 hours than passed through crewe in a whole day, possibly two days. around here, passengers have always been small potatoes compared with freight, especially coal. western Pennsylvania was such a profitable coal field that we had branch lines which saw more trains then than most mainlines do to-day.

Can't argue about tonnage.  :)  Mind you, back in steam days, a lot of those trains would have been freight.  Not heavy by North American standards but 900 to 1000 ton trains, say a couple of hundred per 24 hour shift.  Other than Australia, which runs the world's heaviest trains, nobody beats North America for individual train tonnage.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Doneldon on April 06, 2013, 07:23:41 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 06, 2013, 10:47:51 AM
Doc, I have a question for you about the paint pens that maybe you can help me with.  A month or so ago, I bought a Sharpie brand one at a local craft store.  There was no indication of gloss or flat finish.  When I put it on the side of the rail, it dried too glossy for my taste.  Do you have a suggestion on how I might take away the glossy finish?
Thank you.

jb-

You can give your rails a spritz or a brush on coat of Testors Dullcoat. Be sure to clean it off of the top and inside vertical surfaces of your railheads. Scalecoat and Floquil make paint pens with flat paint. Floquil sells theirs in a pack of three with rail brown, tie brown and rust. I think the difference between rail brown and tie brown is largely academic but you can make some gorgeous track with the paint markers and well done ballast. Some modelers spray the same color brown on their rail and ties before ballasting and that works fine, too.

                                                                                                                                                             -- D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 08, 2013, 11:45:09 AM
Thank you Doc!
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: mongo5573 on April 11, 2013, 06:52:45 PM
Wow, reading what you all write makes me feel ignorant. I have been buying HO stuff off EBay mostly cars and track. I have all brass track. I started buying not knowing there were variations in track and size of cars, plastic and metal cars etc. Can peices of track be combined, can the plastic and metal cars be used together?
Mongo5573
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 11, 2013, 09:53:24 PM
if they are all the same scale, they can be used together. however, you will quickly find out which ones work well and which ones are problem children. this is especially true of older locomotives and cars.

brass rail conducts electricity very well. the problem is, it's oxide doesn't conduct. thus the need to keep it clean or provide some way to keep it from oxidizing such as hair clipper oil, rail zip, etc. my father used brass rail on the first section of his layout that he started in 1978. it is still in use 35 years later.

Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Doneldon on April 11, 2013, 10:00:04 PM
mongo-

Sure those things can be used together. The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) has set standards so that track and rolling stock will work together. You may have to adjust or convert couplers or trucks if you change from one manufacturer to another, but you might have to do that with two cars from the same manufacturer, too. There are also standards for electrical properties, DCC controls and so on.

You will find, despite the standards, that the goods from some manufacturers is etter than that from others, pretty much like the goods in any hobby or business.
                                                                                 -- D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: lameracer40 on April 12, 2013, 10:26:11 AM
Ok, I really appreciate all the tips and suggestions but one more issue has caught my attention....what is the physical difference between code 100 and code 83? I have a bunch of track here but not sure of the code and without anything to compare it to how do I know which is which? The track I have is in excellent shape so I want to use it and don't want to buy all new since I too have limited income to put in this right now. I too have an understanding wife but that only goes so far. ::)
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 12, 2013, 10:48:16 AM
Lamy.

Height of the rails in the difference.
There is a good diagram of one next to the other on the internet.  Don't have the site memorized, but if you type "HO track" in GOOGLE, you will come across it.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 12, 2013, 11:08:20 AM
Mongo,

As Mr. Ward recently pointed out somewhere around here, a lot of the older manufactured rolling stock cars, ones with Talgo style trucks-the kind with couplers attached to the trucks-also have large flanges on the wheels (I checked my stock after Jeff's comment about not allowing them on his layout.)  They do indeed have larger wheel flanges when compared to ones I have converted to body mounted couplers and separate trucks (I have about a 50/50 split of both styled rolling stock).  I don't have noticeable problems running the larger flanged wheels, but do like the look of the lesser flanged wheels better.  I have also found them better for "backing" up .
I also still use brass track, successfully by keeping it clean.  I hope we don't have to compete on EBay :D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 12, 2013, 01:59:47 PM
Lamy & Mongo,

Try these:

www.nmra.org/beginner/track.html

ho-scaletrains.net/id25.html

#1 NMRA- Trackwork Basics
#2 Section Track Basics

RichG would tell you to save these to your "Favorites" until your ears bleed...
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Doneldon on April 12, 2013, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: lameracer40 on April 12, 2013, 10:26:11 AM
one more issue has caught my attention....what is the physical difference between code 100 and code 83?

Racer-

The "code" number on HO track refers to the height of the rail in hundredths of an inch. Thus, Code 100 is 100/1000 inch (or 1/10 inch or .1 inch) high. Code 83 is 83/1000 inch and so on. Code 100 is actually a bit taller than all but the very heaviest mainline rail in North America. I think it's like 168 pound rail (weight per yard) or something huge like that. Code 83 is fairly prototypical for heavy mainline rail used by the larger railroads. Code 70 and Code 50 are progressively smaller and lighter.

The history of railroading is that rails have grown ever larger since they went from wood to steel in the 1830s. Early steel rail was only about two inches high as opposed to six or seven inches today. Sidings, spurs and yards generally have cheaper, lighter rail because those tracks aren't taking a pounding from loaded trains moving at speed. Model railroads are just the opposite.

The earliest model tracks used oversize rails, like Code 100, to accommodate the oversize flanges needed to keep less precisely manufactured locomotives and rolling stock on the tracks. HO rails have shrunk as quality and precision have improved. The NMRA promulgated standards for the size and contour of wheel flanges some years ago (50 or so?) and they have led to model railroads using more prototypically-sized rail. I would hazard a guess that most current pikes use Code 83 but I'm sure that many of them are still using Code 100. I think it's also safe to say that lots of hidden tracks, especially staging yards, use surplus or leftover Code 100 rails.
                                                                                                            -- D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: electrical whiz kid on April 13, 2013, 09:09:52 PM
Something about code 100 that always bothered me-not thaqt I am any particular scale-snob; it just didn't look right to me.  Years pass:  I am using a lot of code 70 and 83, several mfg'rs, as well s methods-so far, so good.  To each his own.  Code 100 is usually less expensive per item, and within reach of most modellers; and most of it is of good quality, unless you aren't paying attention and buy junk.
Rich C.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rbryce1 on April 13, 2013, 09:36:46 PM
My Riverossi steam engines have a problem running on Code 83 track, due to the height of the wheel flanges used by Riverossi.  Code 100 works well with these locomotives and never visually bothered me, as my eyes are not calibrated enough to see the difference in 13 thousandths of an inch, especially after adding a lot of scenery and ballasting the tracks.  Now it may be visibly noticeable if I had used a combination of the different sizes of track in close proximity with each other, but I don't.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: JNXT 7707 on April 13, 2013, 09:44:02 PM
I would put it this way: comparing code 83 to code 100 side by side, yes you can see the difference. That is to say, focusing directly on the track itself and nothing else.
However, seen in the context of the entire layout the difference becomes negligible "in my opinion". You're looking at the trains, you're taking in the scene and how it tells a story. If the track itself is weathered properly and isn't standing out in all its nickel plated glory, who is really going to see it?
So yes, to each his own and I respect wanting to get everything as close to scale as possible, but that's my perspective.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: electrical whiz kid on April 14, 2013, 10:32:18 AM
These comments-the last three-are opinions, and that is good.  When Rivarossi started exporting to the USA and product was analyzed in Model Railroader, they had said that these engines run very well on code 100, but questionably so on anything smaller, so that is foregone.  As I said, the more I use smaller, scalar proportioned track, the better I like it.  What grabs someone else is a good thing; and yep-it is difficult to match up two diffefrently proportioned track.  I have used a lot of my old code 100 in places like staging and stowage, concealed long runs that I want to leave me alone, and on my grandson's layout...   If applied correctly and in a neat and workmanlike way, any track should operate well; unless you get a bunch of junk.  PT Barnum said?
Rich C.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 14, 2013, 03:20:45 PM
..."a sucker born every minute".

You 3 gentleman all make good points.  I share the same views of the 100 as Mssrs. JNX and rbryce, as I probably have alluded to earlier.  Probably why the oversize flanges on the freight cars are working ok, they are run on 100. 
I wonder though, if I started using 83, if I would start to like that better.... ???

You must excuse me, I have to go back to revitalizing an Athearn gold can motor.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: electrical whiz kid on April 14, 2013, 04:46:28 PM
Code 83, 100, 70, 55, and 40 are, in my opinion, all in the eyes of the beholder.  As I said before, whatever floats your boat will make you happy-if you do it correctly.  For many years, code 100 and fibre ties were the go-to equipment-state of the art, if you will-and people liked it.  Now, of course, ther are several choices of commercially available rail, and again, it is the individual's choice..  yours is the choice you make to make you happy.  It's your jing.
Rich C. 
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 14, 2013, 06:24:51 PM
RichieC, you do know that "a sucker born every minute" was my answer to your question about what PT Barnum said, right?
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Doneldon on April 14, 2013, 09:36:31 PM
jb-

I don't know that "liking" has much to do with it. It's more like what seems
to operate most reliably and what gives the most prototypical appearance,
if that's a consideration. Hopefully, they are the same.
                                                                                 -- D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 14, 2013, 10:34:56 PM
Right now Doc, I like Code 100 just fine.
Maybe next month I'll decide I like Code 83.
Right now, I like DC just fine.
Maybe next month I'll decide I like DCC.
Liking has everything to do with it.

This year, I like ARMY'S chances of beating NAVY in lacrosse. 
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Doneldon on April 14, 2013, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 14, 2013, 10:34:56 PM
This year, I like ARMY'S chances of beating NAVY in lacrosse. 

jb-

As an old sailor I have to say, "not a chance."

                                                            -- D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rbryce1 on April 15, 2013, 12:28:42 AM
Quote from: Doneldon on April 14, 2013, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 14, 2013, 10:34:56 PM
This year, I like ARMY'S chances of beating NAVY in lacrosse. 

jb-

As an old sailor I have to say, "not a chance."

                                                            -- D


As a retired submarine sailor, I agree with --D!
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: lameracer40 on April 15, 2013, 06:58:53 AM
As an ex Army recon grunt, I like the way JB thinks
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 15, 2013, 07:54:56 AM
We'll see you squids!!
Mark your calendar....whoops, wait a minute, I found the game had already happened (4/13/13)-I truly did not know this when I posted this last night.
Anyway, ARMY won this year's installment, 14-7 over NAVY.  A thrashing!!
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: electrical whiz kid on April 19, 2013, 03:36:28 PM
JBROCK. 
Hi guy; Yeah I did notice; you won the fish, you know.
How is the layout progressing?  I am progressing in a goodly manner, but oh, those CV turnout kits!  Ya gotta be extra careful.  They are beauties to behold, but ...
Otherwise, I like working with code 70.  It is going where the "museum quality" parts of the layout are. (ha ha).  I have all the time now that I am not working so much antymore-sort of semi-retired...sort of...
Rich C. 
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Jerrys HO on April 19, 2013, 05:07:32 PM
and you guy's complain when someone hijacks a thread?

Oh by the way... If you play ND you'll lose. ;D

Jerry
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 19, 2013, 10:10:04 PM
I was talking about lacrosse Jerrry; but Notre Dame is overated in that too ;)
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 19, 2013, 10:13:59 PM
Rich, have not ripped up the old layout yet, but have been purchasing some nickel silver track to use in part (all Code 100 of course) of the new one.  Also bought some Atlas bridge piers to replace the AHM trestles I have found too fragile.  Too bad I am going to start over bc everything seems to run well on the track.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 20, 2013, 10:16:37 AM
if everything runs well why are you starting over? if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 20, 2013, 02:09:20 PM
Fair question JW.
It is because of looks and I want to had another 2ft of area, do the scenery up right etc.  Thanks again for the tip on the Atlas piers, bc I just bought some for the revamp.  Trust me, I am no hurry to do it  tomorrow.   Will continue to have some fun with what is there, then take on the new project.  What I have now, is mostly what I put together when I was like, 10 years old.  I am also going to integrate some nickel silver track that everyone raves about, along with some 22R curves and road bed, ballast.  Right now, no roadbed and an original poor choice of using particle board.  You see no pictures bc except for how the trains run on the track, it would be an embarrassement to me.  I have done a lot of learning though and that is cool ;D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: lameracer40 on April 23, 2013, 07:09:22 AM
Ok guys, track is down and went with code 100 and the layout looks decent. Left a couple of stops on 2 runs for future additions but here is another problem. I have an '80's model gp 40 diesel and motor wise it works great and in great shape. However, the rubber bands on the drive wheels are worn out and can't seem to find replacements since all the newer engines are different drives and trucks all together. Any suggestions?
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 23, 2013, 08:16:19 AM
replace it. old locomotives with traction tires are usually of low quality and the tires themselves are can be a source of derailments. you can often pick up a bachmann gp40 online for about $30-40 and it will run so much better than what you have.  there is a reason the newer gp40s don't have traction tires.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rbryce1 on April 23, 2013, 08:37:00 AM
You can also try Bull Frog Snot to replace the traction tires.  I have used it, it's easy to apply, there are real good videos on how to do it on You Tube and it works great.  But, a container of it costs almost as much as Jeff said the replacement engine costs ($24.00), however a container will do about 2.3 x 102 of wheels. 
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 23, 2013, 09:26:16 AM
Lamy, with all due respect to Rob's suggestion, I would second Mr. Ward's suggestion.  There have been too many good  locomotives made since they ran with traction tires on them, to continue so screw around with ones that still have them or locomotives that are driven by only 1 set of trucks.  And my added suggestion is to find a locomotive that has dual flywheels.  Others may disagree, but I have found that locomotives with flywheels at either end of the motor, run and pull better than those that do not have flywheels.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rbryce1 on April 23, 2013, 10:29:54 AM
And I would agree with both Jeff and jbrock27 as well.  I offered the Bull Frog Snot option in case there was some sentimental value to the locomotive and you wanted to continue to use it.  I did state the Bull Frog Snot costs about the same or close to the cost of another engine, but it would at least allow you to keep using it.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jward on April 23, 2013, 12:24:19 PM
one thing you can do with older locomotives is park them on an electrically isolated track in the yard. real railroads often do this when they have a surplus of locomotives.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Doneldon on April 23, 2013, 01:37:51 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 20, 2013, 02:09:20 PM
I am also going to integrate some nickel silver track that everyone raves about

JB-

Don't get your hopes up that nickel-silver rails will solve all trackage woes because it won't. You'll still have to pay attention to the basics like making sure that you have no kinks at rail joints, rail joiners are used correctly, your grades are reasonable, and so on. What the NS track will do is conduct electricity better than steel alloy (but not as good as brass), look better than brass, and develop oxidation which is conductive, as opposed to both brass and steel. So I don't think anyone intends to "rave" about NS track; it's more like it's the smartest kid in the dumb row.

                                                                                                                                      -- D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: rbryce1 on April 23, 2013, 03:20:49 PM
Brass may conduct better than NS ... as long as the brass does not have a corrosion or passive layer formed on the track's surface.  I find that NS needs cleaned occasionally, but not as much as brass does.  Brass's passive layer is not near as conductive as NS's passive layer, which is why I prefer NS over brass.  Steel rails are not even in my vocabulary.  

Quote from: Doneldon on April 23, 2013, 01:37:51 PM
So I don't think anyone intends to "rave" about NS track; it's more like it's the smartest kid in the dumb row.
                                                                                                                                     -- D

The trouble is, it's the only row !!! :D ;D ::)
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 24, 2013, 07:37:25 PM
Doc, don't worry, I get it.  Thanks for keeping my hopes in line.  Not looking to solve any trackage "woes" or use NS as a panacea for all ills, just bought some NS to have on hand for my layout redo to "give a shot".   And I have to disagree, I think "rave" is the proper term for how most people describe the use of NS track over brass (what I use now exclusively) and steel.  Yes Rob, steel is not in my vocabulary either, as I have stated before that I would not willingly buy it.  Although I do have some set up for test track and it has been fine for that purpose.    Someone gave me the steel track ;)

I believe you are correct Rob that brass does conduct the best, assuming oxidation has not formed and correct also that NS oxidation conducts better than brass oxidation.  However, I have yet to experience problems with brass, when running trains on it often.  I have used Wahl clipper oil and even an old LL track cleaning car with success. 
I have put out the question previously, of where I can get a small scrap piece of Masonite as I would like to build a track cleaning car around it.  No luck at Home Depot.   
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: JNXT 7707 on April 25, 2013, 11:04:14 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 20, 2013, 02:09:20 PM
Fair question JW.
It is because of looks and I want to had another 2ft of area, do the scenery up right etc.  Thanks again for the tip on the Atlas piers, bc I just bought some for the revamp.  Trust me, I am no hurry to do it  tomorrow.   Will continue to have some fun with what is there, then take on the new project.  What I have now, is mostly what I put together when I was like, 10 years old.  I am also going to integrate some nickel silver track that everyone raves about, along with some 22R curves and road bed, ballast.  Right now, no roadbed and an original poor choice of using particle board.  You see no pictures bc except for how the trains run on the track, it would be an embarrassement to me.  I have done a lot of learning though and that is cool ;D

I made the same poor choice of particle board on my first layout. But this layout has been priceless in the things I have learned building it and I'm sure you are finding that out too. Likewise my second layout upped the bar another few notches. Best part is you're having fun - and I don't think you ever have the 'perfect' layout.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 26, 2013, 12:32:59 PM
I agree with you JNXT about nothing ever being perfect.  I will say that I have viewed a lot of folks pictures of their work, locos, rolling stock, structures, scenery and such much of it to me, looks as perfect as you can get!
Yeah, as far at the particle board went, it was at a time I did not have a say in those kinds of decisions ;).  Next one will be all plywood base ;D.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 26, 2013, 12:40:38 PM
...and yes, the learning has been both priceless and yet fun too!
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Doneldon on April 26, 2013, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 26, 2013, 12:32:59 PM
Next one will be all plywood base ;D.

jb-

Plywood can change dimensions with humidity, too, though not usually as much as the various forms of manufactured sheet materials. One way to avoid the problem is to use extruded foam over or instead of the wooden sheet product. You can even do this when using a cookie cutter subroadbed.
                                                                                              -- D
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: JNXT 7707 on April 26, 2013, 05:40:33 PM
Quote from: jbrock27 on April 26, 2013, 12:32:59 PMNext one will be all plywood base ;D.

I second the extruded foam base suggestion. My current layout is built out of that and I wish I'd started with that in the first place. Extremely lightweight but strong, and rigid enough that a plywood base really isn't mandatory. I use two layers of 2" foam. The bottom layer is the 'base' and the track is on the top layer. I've also carved out a river and used extra foam to build mountains. It's pretty easy to work with.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 26, 2013, 08:08:43 PM
Ehhh, thanks for the suggestions fellas, but my plan did not include foam.  Not that I couldn't, but was not impressed with the foam board I found at my local Home Depot.  My plan is to use sectional track on cork roadbed glued to the 1/2" plywood base (remember by post a month or so ago looking for suggestions for what to use under sectional snap track?)
Then I was going to paint the other surfaces of the plywood and ballast the track.  Set up roads, houses, etc.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Terry Toenges on April 27, 2013, 12:10:17 PM
If using foam, just make sure it is extruded blue or pink board. The white bead board creates a big mess when carving it and is not as strong.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on April 27, 2013, 01:32:23 PM
Thank you for the tip TT.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: Terry Toenges on April 27, 2013, 04:29:05 PM
You're welcome.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: electrical whiz kid on April 30, 2013, 08:33:15 AM
Whichever track you decide to use, plan out any work FIRST!  Take your time doing this and it will pay off well. Also; I usually don't hear about lateral checking too much.  Lateral here means checking across the width of the track-not the gauge.  I have watched with bemusement, trains wriggling down the track like a hula danceer (ON MY OWN WORK AS WELL...)  Alwys check youre work this with a level.  There are few things worse in this hobby than lousy trackwork; espically if it causes a thousand dollar brass import to hit the deck-hard...  Learn to use that level and/or laser lights well, and yo u will never be sorry.  Proficiency in everyday (shop) math is also a good thing.

Rich C.
Title: Re: track type; which is better?
Post by: jbrock27 on May 01, 2013, 07:13:07 PM
Agree RichC.
Thank you.