track type; which is better?

[Doneldon]

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

[jbrock27]

Thank you Doc!

[mongo5573]

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

[jward]

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.

[Doneldon]

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

[lameracer40]

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.

[jbrock27]

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.

[jbrock27]

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

[jbrock27]

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...

[Doneldon]

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

[electrical whiz kid]

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.

[rbryce1]

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.

[JNXT 7707]

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.

[electrical whiz kid]

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.

[jbrock27]

..."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.