SDS NRPF

SDS NRPF

Thursday 25 October 2012

Code 100?

After much research and looking at a lot of fellow modellers blogs i find myself asking should I have not been tight and got code 83 or 55 rail instead of the cheaper Code 100? With the main display side of my layout having its track all but laid minus a set of points and a siding i don't know if i can justify starting all over again. On one hand i've done all the laying of the track and spent good money on all new flex track and points, but after looking at some Proto 87 layouts i dont know if i can handle running on the 'I' beams of code 100. SO.... is there a convincing way of disguising code 100 with higher ballast etc (lucky most of my display is station setting) or do i have to bite the bullet or get over the inacuracy of the 100 track?

HELP!!!!?????

Kyle

This is a shot of 4496 (A repainted and weathered tuscan trainorama 44) at the soon to be permanent Wobbegong Station. The rail looks huge without ballast?!


And the current track plan
Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. Colin HusseyFriday, October 26, 2012

    Kyle

    I have just spent several hours trying to fix a couple of spots on my layout owing to problems with a new 4 wheel wagon with 88 wheels, yep its all done, but the crazy part is that, the model will run over the track which actually looks worse than it did previously, maybe thats a reminder that track on the NSWGR/PTC/SRA etc, was not built perfectly.

    The worst of it was I had to pull up parts of the track that was already laid, & ballasted also the scenery around it was subsequently damaged, now I have to fix up those as well.

    I am in a group where the majority have opted for code 70 or 75 track, & all are very experinced modellers, yet they also have problems with models especially out of the box RTR types. They are all in one accord in saying, the finer your standard, the finer the line is in having problems.

    By the time of the Candy era, track ballast was much more uniform & as against the earlier days where ballast was barelly to the top of the sleepers, if at all, ballast was starting to get more precise & deeper, but not by that much, as it was not untill the 80's that track upgrading & ballasting standards were really lifted.

    If your layout is primarilly a station scene, grab a few books such as NSW country Railway stations & see the ballast profiles, in those days, the ballast was finer, & was pretty well level all the way in the areas, meaning there was usually hardly a dip of ballastin the 6 foot
    in other words, the ballast, & in station areas was at the same height, being the top of the sleepers over all, remember also that it was usually finer than in the sections owing to staff having to use it for walking over, not like today.

    If you can ballast to sleeper height & with stray stuff over the top of some sleepers, & paint the rails, at least those that are seen, both sides & the outside of the rail head, it is often hard to pick that the rail being code 100.

    The question to ask yourself, how much did you spend on the track you have, & then weigh up the cost of replacing it.

    The option of couse is that if you still need to buy more track, is to by code 75, for the main feature area which is the station, & use the 100 in not as conspicuous areas, you can buy adapter joiners.

    I personally have code 100, & I am not sorry that I chose it, although the price of 75 was far too much over 100 when I purchased it, today the prices are a bit closer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KyleSaturday, October 27, 2012

    Hey Collin,

    Cheers for all info and assistant. I think ill stick the 100 track, ive tracked down a lot of photos of station scenes from the mid to late 80's and i see what you mean about the ballast being high etc. I think though for my trestle bridge ill get some connectors and run 75 code over it just so it doesn't look like some girders from a high rise buliding on top of the timbers.

    Cheers

    Kyle

    ReplyDelete
  3. James McInerneyTuesday, November 13, 2012

    G'day Kyle :) As far as I am concerned, code 100 is only suitable for fiddle yards and hidden areas and cost is a 'once-off', but one has to look at the overscale rail for the life of the layout... However, you have already laid it, so the best way to disguise it is to paint the rails and sleepers and ballast the track. Station areas were often ballasted with 'fines' as the staff had to walk on the track for shunting etc and the sleepers were often hidden under the ballast, so if you do the same on your model, it can help disguise the very overscale rail. If you expand further, use code 75!

    ReplyDelete
  4. KyleSunday, November 25, 2012

    Cheers for that James! Now after looking at more layouts using fine scale rail, i am finding it hard to justify using the code 100. As i draw more inspiration from the AMRM (which is fabulous)i think when funds are sufficient, the leap will be made down to code 75.

    Cheers

    Kyle

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)