H O track.

If I were getting into HO, I would go with Kato's Unitrack. It's code 83, and although pretty limited, variety wise, it's typical Kato high quality stuff...

Mark in Oregon

In my opinion, you're likely to have fewer derailments with code 100 track than with code 83. In HO (1:87 scale), code 100 scales to a rail height of 8.7 inches. Code 83 scales to a rail height of 7.2 inches. By comparison, Atlas O gauge rails (1:48) are approximately code 200, which scales to a rail height of 9.6 inches, so HO code 100 and 83 are closer to scale height than 3-rail O gauge. Wheel flange depth is also less likely to be an issue on code 100 rail. I'm an O gauge modeler so I'm not an expert on HO...

MELGAR

If your running scale engines or engines and car that were made within the last 20 years or so, code 83 would work fine.

But if you are going to run older HO, or some of the cheap stuff, then code 100 would be better.

RAY

I grew up with Atlas code 180 track in the 80's on a 16'x24' layout and I rarely had operational issues with it.  That was just about the time code 83 starting gaining traction and having seen layouts with code 83, that is my current preference.  The look to me is certainly worth it and in many ways, HO has standardized around code 83 track.  HO trains just feel more massive on code 83 IMO.

I would say that anything produced over at least the last 30 years that is of reasonable quality would do well on code 83.  The early 90's was when there was a real renaissance in HO trains, even with the more budget friendly manufacturers. However, if you are looking at vintage HO or even the early Rivarossi AHM equipment of the late 60's early 70's then I would go with the heavier track.

The other possibility for you could be to do mainlines in code 100 and your branch lines and yards in code 83.   

Thanks gentlemen for the suggestions. I'm getting out of o scale due to the cost of turnout's and no standardized control system. Instead of buying all those expensive locomotives I should've bought more track & turnouts.  This is a tough nut to crack but I made the nut.

In HO Code 83 is equivalent to 125-132 lb rail. Fairly common mainline. Code 70 is about 100 lb rail more likely found on sidings. Code 100 is 152 lb rail only found on a few mainlines.

Pete

@Strummer posted:

If I were getting into HO, I would go with Kato's Unitrack. It's code 83, and although pretty limited, variety wise, it's typical Kato high quality stuff...

Mark in Oregon

I agree with this. I have used Kato Unitrack on a prior HO layout and it is great. Never experienced a derailment using their turnouts.

I’ve used Kato Unitrack for N scale as well over the past decade with no issues.  I wouldn’t use anything else.

@drelo posted:

I agree with this. I have used Kato Unitrack on a prior HO layout and it is great. Never experienced a derailment using their turnouts.

I’ve used Kato Unitrack for N scale as well over the past decade with no issues.  I wouldn’t use anything else.

Why thank you. 🙂

FWIW, the only time I had issues with large (European) flanges in HO was when trying to run that stuff on code 70 track. Any North American (RP-25) and/or European stuff worked fine on code 83, regardless of flange size... just my experience.

Mark in Oregon

As an HO'er since the early 1960s, and having hand laid HO std gauge track in codes 70 and 55 on numerous layouts, and using flex and prefab switches in code 70 on my current layout, and planning a smaller layout using prefab switches and code 83 flex, I can assure you that any HO engine that complies with NMRA RP25 wheel contours (introduced in the early 1960s) and is properly gauged, will be fine on any of the above from a proven vendor. One code of flex isn't any more prone to derailing than another. Derails are primarily gauge and flange related and not inherent because of code.

Simply put:

* Do you want your track to reflect lighter weight "secondary" track? Then use code 70.

* Do you want your track to look more like a heavy duty main line? Then use code 83.

* Do you want your layout to look like a "classic" HO layout w/oversize rail? Then use code 100.

* Do you want very geometric looking trackwork w/raised roadbed? Then use sectional track w/roadbed.

Also:

* A combination of flex track and prefab switches can allow "flowing" track work if you're willing to put forth the effort and take more care in installation.

* Sectional track sans prefab roadbed will be able to be cut and fitted as needed, but will typically yield a "geometric" look when finished.

* Sectional track with attached roadbed is very restrictive in what you can do (cutting fitter pieces is more involved) and will still result in a definite "geometric" look.

Andre

@laming posted:

As an HO'er since the early 1960s, and having hand laid HO std gauge track in codes 70 and 55 on numerous layouts, and using flex and prefab switches in code 70 on my current layout, and planning a smaller layout using prefab switches and code 83 flex, I can assure you that any HO engine that complies with NMRA RP25 wheel contours (introduced in the early 1960s) and is properly gauged, will be fine on any of the above from a proven vendor. One code of flex isn't any more prone to derailing than another. Derails are primarily gauge and flange related and not inherent because of code.

Simply put:

* Do you want your track to reflect lighter weight "secondary" track? Then use code 70.

* Do you want your track to look more like a heavy duty main line? Then use code 83.

* Do you want your layout to look like a "classic" HO layout w/oversize rail? Then use code 100.

* Do you want very geometric looking trackwork w/raised roadbed? Then use sectional track w/roadbed.

Also:

* A combination of flex track and prefab switches can allow "flowing" track work if you're willing to put forth the effort and take more care in installation.

* Sectional track sans prefab roadbed will be able to be cut and fitted as needed, but will typically yield a "geometric" look when finished.

* Sectional track with attached roadbed is very restrictive in what you can do (cutting fitter pieces is more involved) and will still result in a definite "geometric" look.

Andre

Thank you. This maybe a dumb question but, can you use different codes of track together, say code 100 with code 83 ?

If so since the rail height's are different how is this done ?

You can use different codes together if you use transition sections (either track pieces, conversion rail joiners, hand-soldered joints, etc.) when necessary. Different brands of track, and different rail sizes, might require creative shimming at the joints but it isn't tough. On my HO layout, I use code 83, 70, and 55 for various different scenic effects. Code 100 looked too large. But as for reliability, the bigger the number... the easier to use and greater acceptance of mistakes.

@BenLMaggi posted:

You can use different codes together if you use transition sections (either track pieces, conversion rail joiners, hand-soldered joints, etc.) when necessary. Different brands of track, and different rail sizes, might require creative shimming at the joints but it isn't tough. On my HO layout, I use code 83, 70, and 55 for various different scenic effects. Code 100 looked too large. But as for reliability, the bigger the number... the easier to use and greater acceptance of mistakes.

Thank you. Conversion rail joiners, called compromise bars in real railroading.

If I may add:

My first HO track ( in the early 1970s) was the usual Atlas "Snap Track", which I suppose was code 100. As I progressed, I eventually used Micro Engineering codes 83 and 70, flex and switches. Great stuff.

As far as the European, large flanged stuff: I realized that this DB V215:

...had basically the same mechanism (motor, gears, wheels) as the Roco-built Alco FAs, so I simply swapped the geared axles and then had a German diesel that could run on code 70.   (I might also add here that these Roco engines are as nice a runner as you'll find; whisper quiet and very smooth...much like Kato.)

Unfortunately, this was pretty much the only piece I found I could easily do this way; the beautiful stock wheels on the Roco Euro rolling stock has the big flanges, and are just too nice and free-rolling for me to want to swap all them out with...Northwest Shortline(?) wheel sets...

Other than a few brass engines, a Kato and the odd Bowser and Bachmann steamer, these Euro items are pretty much all the HO I still have...

Mark in Oregon