rail joiners

Can any tell me if micro engineering code 70 rail joiners are compatible with shinohara code 70 can not find any shinohara any
where. Need nickle silver and plastic both.
,OKIECRIP >
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which scale? I did a search for "micro engineering code 70 rail joiners" and found that there is N scale and HO scale code 70.
r
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 22, 12:20 pm, snipped-for-privacy@netscape.net wrote:

HO
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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'.
Chuck D.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charles Davis wrote:

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 joiners.
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)
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

snip
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]

Chuck D.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charles Davis wrote:

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 processes. 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.

Fair enough.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote: [...]

[...]
Wow, you must have Superman's microscopic vision!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

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.
Chuck D.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

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.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 etc. Tony
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony wrote:

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 track.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Tony
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Pete
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well I'm a looter by trade (I take all the high-quality instruments such as guitars, mandolins, banjos and cetera you build and repair)
just kidding...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's okay!
Should you get over the fence and past the Rottweilers, you'll find that I enjoy a moving target.
Pete
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
P. Roehling wrote:

The 'Moving Targets' are worth more points, but the 'clean up' is still such a bother at times.
Chuck D.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

See "Rottweilers", above.
Pete
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
P. Roehling wrote:

I missed that connection. That'll do er!!!
Chuck D.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hehehe i listened to the same Richard Pryor tapes in the 70's hehehe...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

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.