Something to remember!!
Code 70 is Code 70 is Code 70!!!!!!!
The Code 70 refers to the rail cross section measuring .070" in the 1:1
'real world' (where WE live). There MAY be rail joiners marketed as
being 'HO' or 'N', but either will fit the rail.
Differences might be 'thickness' of the metal, length of the 'joiner'.
No, no and NO!
"Code 70" (and every other "Code") refers to the height of the rail.
Where rail joiners are concerned the important dimension is the width of
the foot of the rail.
ME's Code 70 for HO may be the same as ME's Code 70 rail for N, there
again it might well be different. I use ME HO code 70 but for obvious
reasons I don't have ME's N code 70 so I can't check.
Peco makes Code 55 and Code 80 for N scale - they use the same rail
I use ME code 70 track and Peco Code 75 turnouts and get away with ME
rail joiners, but from memory Shinohara Code 70 rail used the same
joiners as their Code 100. (I got rid of my Shinohara long ago)
Right!!! This was 'Codified' as an 'NMRA Recommended Practice' if my
memory serves me, sometime in the early '60s The Definition (Code) was
for the complete profile for the rail, the reference was by the 'height'
part of the 'definition'. The problem being that all manufacturers DON't
follow the rules, so there are variations from the 'defined' dimensions.
Right! [Which is why the HO/N is not pertinent]
Depending on PECO's source for their rail, this may very well be the
case "FOR PECO rail".
Never for any of the Shinohara that I saw [Former hobby shop owner/
operator -- '62 through '70]
Possibly because it would be stupid to define the profile, particularly
as the prototype profile isn't rigidly defined.
At the modelling level, very few of the manufacturers are actually
situated in the USa, so they are more likely to use a profile that
matches their own prototypes or a profile that suits their manufacturing
Compare a prototype 11.2" high rail profile with a 6.09" high profile
rail and note the different profiles. They aren't the same. Further,
check rail profiles of (say) 1847, 1927 and 2007 - they are not the
same. I for one object to "standards" that do not match the prototype.
True, the width of the foot of the rail is pertinent, not to mention the
depth of the foot and it's angle of taper from centre to edge.
It ain't that hard Wolf.
IF you have all the same rail, then it's hard to notice any difference.
Mixing different rail 'profiles' while maintaining the same Code size,
the difference will show up. maybe not a glaring thing, but just
'something' about the scene doesn't 'look right'.
Just like in HO, a layout using Code 100 flex track looks great, till
someone slips a section of Code 70 into the scene. The can notice VERY
small 'glitches' in consistency of the scene.
I did get my eyes calibrated and engraved with thous of millimeter
markings in 1985 - otherwise they're quite normal - why do you ask?
If you look carefully at different sizes of rail you'll notice that the
proportions between head, web and foot vary, modern rail having
(generally) a taller web.
I had a journey on the Zillertalbahn (Austrian Narrow Gauge)this summer.
Looking at the rail it "looked" bigger (in height) than the rail on our
local (Essex UK) tracks. I'm sure if I measured it it wouldn't have been. I
suppose it was a combination of the ballasting, being closer to the track
The Zillertalbahn is using standard gauge rail when replacing worn rail.
It's cheaper to buy "off the shelf" than lighter rail made specially.
Mind you, Peco got there ahead of them with their narrow gauge model
Thanks for the information about the Zillertalbahn rail. Everything about
the railway did look substantial. We didn't get to go on the steam hauled
service (probably took too long over breakfast!) but we did pass it going
the other way.
Nope. Just takes getting used to.
I'm a luthier by trade (I build and repair high-quality instruments such as
guitars, mandolins, banjos and cetera) and that requires me to distinguish
between steel strings that are quite small in diameter. After doing this for
45 years I can glance at a string and tell you whether it's a .009 or an
.010 and get it right about 99% of the time.
This saves me the time I would otherwise spend grabbing my dial calipers and
putting them away afterwards, and also serves to amaze the customers.
Note: I *do* wear reading glasses while at work.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.