<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Is there a height different in track?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.model-train-help.com/2016/01/is-there-a-height-different-in-track.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.model-train-help.com/2016/01/is-there-a-height-different-in-track.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=is-there-a-height-different-in-track</link>
	<description>Model railroads and model trains</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2016 03:52:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Newman Atkinson		</title>
		<link>https://blog.model-train-help.com/2016/01/is-there-a-height-different-in-track.html#comment-11562</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Newman Atkinson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2016 03:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.model-train-help.com/?p=3865#comment-11562</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Jeff,
Same thing in HO track.    The height of the rail and the code also relates to the proto type as in the weight capacity of the rail.     When you are on sidings you might find a smaller rail where running trains do not require stronger rail.   That also equates to less steel to pay for.   In HO I believe there are 3 major codes of track rail.   Code 70,   83,  and code 100.    Some modelers try to use the different rail codes as do the proto types do.   Personally I have a hard time seeing the difference unless I get up close.    In HO the code 100 is taller rail and in modeling it is more forgiving if I get too much ballast along the tracks.    In N scale I am sure it is the same way.   If you are in the Lafayette Indiana area go by the Amtrak station,    Different railroads will run different strength of rail.   For instance   there are 3 tracks that go past the Amtrak station.    You have 2 tracks that are definitely shorter and are Norfolk &#038; Southern tracks.   The Third is a CSX Line and also the Amtrak runs their Hoosier State Passenger train from Indy to Chicago.    The 2 railroads next to each other it is very visible on the height of the track.    If you have different rail  the base of that rail will also be slightly wider on the heavier rail.   Your model rail can also be.    There are converter sections to join different rails and they have them for N scale also.   If you are running more modern fleet it would be more appropriate to have the heavier rail as our modern trains also carry more weight.   I myself an working with more modern fleet and I elected to stay with the code 100 all the way.   Like I said I see such a small difference that unless you are down eye to eye with it you most likely won&#039;t see it.   from   Newman]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff,<br />
Same thing in HO track.    The height of the rail and the code also relates to the proto type as in the weight capacity of the rail.     When you are on sidings you might find a smaller rail where running trains do not require stronger rail.   That also equates to less steel to pay for.   In HO I believe there are 3 major codes of track rail.   Code 70,   83,  and code 100.    Some modelers try to use the different rail codes as do the proto types do.   Personally I have a hard time seeing the difference unless I get up close.    In HO the code 100 is taller rail and in modeling it is more forgiving if I get too much ballast along the tracks.    In N scale I am sure it is the same way.   If you are in the Lafayette Indiana area go by the Amtrak station,    Different railroads will run different strength of rail.   For instance   there are 3 tracks that go past the Amtrak station.    You have 2 tracks that are definitely shorter and are Norfolk &amp; Southern tracks.   The Third is a CSX Line and also the Amtrak runs their Hoosier State Passenger train from Indy to Chicago.    The 2 railroads next to each other it is very visible on the height of the track.    If you have different rail  the base of that rail will also be slightly wider on the heavier rail.   Your model rail can also be.    There are converter sections to join different rails and they have them for N scale also.   If you are running more modern fleet it would be more appropriate to have the heavier rail as our modern trains also carry more weight.   I myself an working with more modern fleet and I elected to stay with the code 100 all the way.   Like I said I see such a small difference that unless you are down eye to eye with it you most likely won&#8217;t see it.   from   Newman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Peter Skennerton		</title>
		<link>https://blog.model-train-help.com/2016/01/is-there-a-height-different-in-track.html#comment-11554</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Skennerton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2016 00:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.model-train-help.com/?p=3865#comment-11554</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Track is manufactured to various sizes referred to as Code which relates to the rail height in 1/1000 of an inch. Code 80 is 0.080&quot; high where code 75 is 0.075&quot;. Close but not quite the same. Converter fish plates are available for 
Different manufacturers track of the same code should be compatible. Fish plates may be on the wrong side but this can be addressed by carefully removing one of the fish plates.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Track is manufactured to various sizes referred to as Code which relates to the rail height in 1/1000 of an inch. Code 80 is 0.080&#8243; high where code 75 is 0.075&#8243;. Close but not quite the same. Converter fish plates are available for<br />
Different manufacturers track of the same code should be compatible. Fish plates may be on the wrong side but this can be addressed by carefully removing one of the fish plates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
