Use of Code 88 wheelsets and the US HO Standard

[CVSNE]

Here's my experience - I will offer my layout as an example although I know of a number of other operating large layouts that use much the same items that I do.

 

I have a combination of (horror of horrors, I know) Walthers code 83, Peco Code 83, Micro-Engineering code 70, Proto 87 stores, and hand laid turnouts with either hand built, Details West or P:87 Stores frogs. Track is primarily ME Code 70 with some sidings/spurs ME code 55 and Atlas code 83 in one staging yard and code 100 (with Peco code 100 turnouts) in another staging yard. It's an 18 x 55 foot layout of which one small element is the micro-detailing of the trackwork - my primary goal is to recreate the appearance of some key scenes on a favorite prototype and capture the spirit of the region modeled. Yes, it's  motley assortment of track but once everything is in place and tested I paint it a base color and it all blends together quite nicely. 

 

The vast majority of the cars on the railroad are equipped with Kadee "semi-scale" couplers with "code 88" wheel sets - mostly Intermountain but some of the newer one-piece Kadee trucks have the narrower wheels. 

Everything works fine and I regularly host operating sessions for 8-10 guests. While we sometimes have things go on the ground, the vast, vast, majority of the time the issue is operator error - running into an open switch and the like. 

The only cars that ever had tracking issues were Rapido passenger cars - we found a lot of the wheel sets were noticeably out of gauge so we replaced them with ReBoxx and all has been well. 

 

That's been my experience. 

 

I've had people come down into my basement and turn their nose up at the track work, or the wiring, or even the color I painted the walls or the fact that I didn't bother to cove the corners. I've also listened to people babble on endlessly for years on the layout they're going to build someday - one that will have perfect track, every car perfectly weathered, all the structures scratch built and the like….

 

I tell them to invite me over when it's done since I'd love to see it. 

 

I'm still waiting.  

[298]

TBH, I've never been too bothered about waving the '88 flag, although I did insist on Intermountain or Kadee wheelsets as standard for stock running on the first layout and additionally #58's with their trip pins removed and added air hoses. The stock is pretty much viewed side on and I don't have any cars such as open ended hoppers where the width of a wheelset is apparent.

 

I did however have a short length of street running, and although the yokels couldn't have been more slack-jawed, I did think it would have looked better with proper girder rail instead of regular code 100 buried in plaster with a flangeway carved out. The present layout uses Fast Tracks turnouts and Shinohara code 70, key people from Peco have seen it and are aware of the lack of detail on these turnouts, and likewise they seemed to acknowledge that there is a market for Shortline or earlier modellers who want tighter turnouts and lower rail profiles than what is currently offered in their code 83 range, so I'm optimistically "watching this space....".

 

But there is the little bug at the back of my mind that increasingly regrets not starting in P87, there is always room for improvement and innovation, so soon I might be removing said dummy air pipes and fitting flexible ones with magnetic ends....

[Andy Reichert]

I call it a well founded asumption.... ;-)

As he used actual wheels to build his track, it would be very hard to add fractions of a millimeter just because....

I know that when I mislaid my track gauge kit and used a boxcar to check the gauge on a diorama I made. The gauge turned out smaller than the NMRA gauge....

I agree that it would be very interesting to get someone to measure the timesaver!

 

I found this in Railroad line forums. A discussion avbout the original Timesaver.

 

emccamey

Crew Chief

USA

917 Posts

Posted - 02/05/2008 :  1:48:41 PM       The original had a 14" minimum radius and very sharp (handlaid #4) turnouts on a 32" by 80" base. In On30, even scaled up to 4x8 - you'd still have minimum radius of about 16". So - scaling up to a 4x8 would give some pretty tight track work. The grades would also be very constricting, the HO version had 3% - you'd end up with better than 5% for On30 clearances.

 

To get the 'same' flavor and operation, I'd think some additional scaling would be necessary unless you will severely limit your equipment. (John only ran his 'Little Joe' switcher mostly and some very small equipment on his original).

 

 . . . .

I'm not how this stacks up with Martin's stated minimum radius for 16.2 mm gauge being 36". I don't think you can both narrowed gauge and extra tight radii together. Unless you have specially short and flexible equipment. Like Trolleys.

 

Andy

[shortliner]

There is something severely wrong with the description of the timesaver given above - in fact it sounds much more like the original G&D which was about that size - The timesaver was 68" x 10" and even in "double form" never approached that size - I'd suggest a look at

http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-timesaver.html

where the trackplan shown in MR is displayed

 

EDIT - Even that would not be the correct size - see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79714-the-best-train-set-layout-you-ever-saw/page-4  post #83

[Andy Reichert]

There is something severely wrong with the description of the timesaver given above - in fact it sounds much more like the original G&D which was about that size - The timesaver was 68" x 10" and even in "double form" never approached that size - I'd suggest a look at

http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-timesaver.html

where the trackplan shown in MR is displayed

 

EDIT - Even that would not be the correct size - see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79714-the-best-train-set-layout-you-ever-saw/page-4  post #83

 

I took that post from the railroad-line forum thread on the timesaver, so it's possible that the poster may have been referring to G&D. However the photos show what look like short #4 turnouts, although in less sharp "wye" form. But it's clearly not 36" radius.

 

Andy