|
|
 Posted - December 27 2010 : 9:10:32 PM
|
What is the "smallest" track I can use with red box (or older) Tyco engines? It will be a very basic layout so I will not need a lot of track. I assume if the engines run well the rolling stock will too. I see there is nice stuff in codes 55, 70 and 83. Am I "stuck" with code 100? Thanks.
rich p
|
Country:  USA ~
Posts: 190 ~
Member Since: December 26 2010 ~
Last Visit: November 01 2024
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - December 27 2010 : 9:57:14 PM
|
No, 83 should be usable as well. Not sure about smaller, though. But Tyco never had the huge flanges like some others, so may go to 70 as well.
Jerry
" When life throws you bananas...it's easy to slip up"
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 3974 ~
Member Since: January 04 2009 ~
Last Visit: January 11 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - December 27 2010 : 10:08:13 PM
|
When discussing track, "size" usually refers to the gauge / scale (width) and sometimes the curve radius. "Code" refers to the height of the rail itself.
In the redbox era (1960's), most HO layouts were primarily designed around 18"R curves... although 15" was not uncommon and most smaller cars (40' or less) would handle these easily. The Tyco Talgo train even included 12"R curves IIRC (I'll have to double-check mine). So your assertion that most redbox stuff... even the 50' and 60' cars... would handle this is correct.
"Code" is another matter. The Code Number indicates the weight of the (real) rail in pounds per foot (note that this is NOT torque, ha ha); Code 100 would be 100lbs per foot in real life. The heavier the rail the heavier the load it can carry, etc. Most vintage HO by all manufacturers (not just Tyco) was made when the term "code" hadn't been invented by rivetcounters yet, and there was literally just one size: 100. "Code 83" has a lower profile that is supposedly more realistic. Code 70 is smaller yet an more realistic for branch line and low-traffic mains.
(Is this really noticeable? Personally I argue "no". I've got a 100/83 mix on my layout and you can tell the difference, but 100 is not offensive to me. I'm usually watching the trains, not the track. Weathering the rails does wonders to mask their size.)
The catch is this: a lot of vintage model equipment has oversized wheel flanges, and using smaller code rail can cause those deep flanges to hit the ties instead. Rivarossi and AHM cars are especially bad for this. Tyco isn't as badly affected in my experience.
Basically, I recommend sticking with code 100. It's cheaper, more easily found, and unless you're building a serious model layout to impress the local rivet society (and if you're asking about Tyco you're probably NOT), 83 is an unnecessary expense and indulgence. 70 - not to mention 55! - is just plain asking for trouble and limiting what you can run.
I'd not go smaller than 18"R for the same reason... it's hard enough dealing with less than 22" if you ever want to experiment or indulge some larger equipment from time to time.
Edited by - spiderj76 on January 03 2011 1:42:49 PM
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2798 ~
Member Since: September 17 2010 ~
Last Visit: July 22 2015
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - December 28 2010 : 07:18:01 AM
|
quote:No, 83 should be usable as well. Not sure about smaller, though. But Tyco never had the huge flanges like some others, so may go to 70 as well.
Jerry
Originally posted by AMC_Gremlin_GTÂ -Â December 27 2010Â :Â 9:57:14 PM
|
I used code 83 Atlas and switched back to code 100 Atlas. Many Tycos and other older loco's and rolling stock with original wheelsets will tie tap or derail on switches and crossovers as spiderJ said. I do have a few that will run on code 83 until they came to a crossover or switch - I would stick to code 100 - less trouble when running older trains
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2507 ~
Member Since: January 31 2006 ~
Last Visit: October 21 2017
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - January 03 2011 : 09:21:50 AM
|
(Is this really noticeable? Personally I argue "no". I've got a 100/83 mix on my layout and you can tell the difference, but 100 is not offensive to me. I'm usually watching the trains, not the track. Weathering the rails does wonders to mask their size.)
The catch is this: a lot of vintage model equipment has oversized wheel flanges, and using smaller code rail can cause those deep flanges to hit the ties instead. Rivarossi and AHM cars are especially bad for this. Tyco isn't as badly affected in my experience.
Basically, I recommend sticking with code 100. It's cheaper, more easily found, and unless you're building a serious model layout to impress the local rivet society (and if you're asking about Tyco you're probably NOT), 83 is an unnecessary expense and indulgence. 70 - not to mention 55! - is just plain asking for trouble and limiting what you can run.
I'd not go smaller than 18"R for the same reason... it's hard enough dealing with less than 22" if you ever want to experiment or indulge some larger equipment from time to time.
Originally posted by spiderj76Â -Â December 27 2010Â :Â 10:08:13 PM
[/quote]
rich p
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 190 ~
Member Since: December 26 2010 ~
Last Visit: November 01 2024
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - January 03 2011 : 09:28:05 AM
|
"Code" is another matter. The Code Number indicates the weight of the (real) rail in pounds per foot (not that this is NOT torque, ha ha); Code 100 would be 100lbs per foot in real life. The heavier the rail the heavier the load it can carry, etc. Most vintage HO by all manufacturers (not just Tyco) was made when the term "code" hadn't been invented by rivetcounters yet, and there was literally just one size: 100. "Code 83" has a lower profile that is supposedly more realistic. Code 70 is smaller yet an more realistic for branch line and low-traffic mains.
(Is this really noticeable? Personally I argue "no". I've got a 100/83 mix on my layout and you can tell the difference, but 100 is not offensive to me. I'm usually watching the trains, not the track. Weathering the rails does wonders to mask their size.)
The catch is this: a lot of vintage model equipment has oversized wheel flanges, and using smaller code rail can cause those deep flanges to hit the ties instead. Rivarossi and AHM cars are especially bad for this. Tyco isn't as badly affected in my experience.
Basically, I recommend sticking with code 100. It's cheaper, more easily found, and unless you're building a serious model layout to impress the local rivet society (and if you're asking about Tyco you're probably NOT), 83 is an unnecessary expense and indulgence. 70 - not to mention 55! - is just plain asking for trouble and limiting what you can run.
I'd not go smaller than 18"R for the same reason... it's hard enough dealing with less than 22" if you ever want to experiment or indulge some larger equipment from time to time.
Originally posted by spiderj76Â -Â December 27 2010Â :Â 10:08:13 PM
[/quote]
Thanks or the reply. I am not 'offended' by code 100 it is just that the code 83 stuff looks so much better (at least the Atlas and Kato) withthe better looking ties, brown color, and smaller spikes. I addition, roadbed is included. My layout will be small and simple so I will not need alot of track. 22" looks like the way to go on the mainline - it will look much better (I have on 0-4-0 with 40' cars).
rich p
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 190 ~
Member Since: December 26 2010 ~
Last Visit: November 01 2024
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - January 03 2011 : 1:29:57 PM
|
That is true about the scale brown ties and spikes - I forgot they differentiated the products that way as well, and AFAIK they don't offer the scale ties with 100 rail - which is a stupid pointless shame. IIRC Atlas "Snap-track" was the Code 100 + thick black ties (do they even still make this?) and the "Custom Line" was the 83 + scale ties, but I recall a time (not that long ago) when you could choose brown or black.
The integrated roadbed is a relatively new innovation though, only became popular in the last 10-15 years or so. It tends to be pricey when new though, and you only really need it if you're not going to build a permanent layout (roadbed track is a necessity for kids / carpet / xmas layouts, etc... but pointless when you're affixing it to a board or other foundation). In other words, you can save a lot of money if you buy standard track and separate roadbed - especially once turnouts are involved.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2798 ~
Member Since: September 17 2010 ~
Last Visit: July 22 2015
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
Home
Forums
Events Calendar
Forum Admins & Mods
Register
