track type; which is better?

[lameracer40]

I'm getting back into railroading after 30 years and see different types of track. I don't want to use the E-Z track and I have several pieces of regular track but it is different in color. Which is better, nickel-silver or steel and how can you tell the difference? How many styles are there?

[jward]

there are 3 different metals commonly used for rail. they are brass which is golden in colour, steel which is a dull silver-grey, and nickel silver which is shiny silver in colour. of the 3 nickel silver is by far the best.

brass oxidizes with a non conductive coating and must be cleaned often. steel can rust and is almost impossible to solder feeder wires to. nickel silver can be soldered and stays cleaner than the others. best of all, its oxide conducts electricity. ns has become the standard, and is available from all makers of track.

[lameracer40]

Ok that was a big help but one more thing, Is NS magnetic? All of the shiny track that I have is magnetic.

[jward]

no.

if it is magnetic you have steel.

[lameracer40]

Thank you very much for your help. 

[rogertra]

Simple answers, in no particular order: -

Nickle silver rail, nothing else will do.

Code 83 or smaller for realism.  No need for code 100 rail these days except perhaps in hidden staging where realism is not important and code 100 is slightly cheaper.

Quality flex track and never set track.

No. 6 switches or larger if buying quality flex track but nothing less than a No. 5 is space is tight.

Or, hand lay your own track either with or without commercial templates.

[jbrock27]

Lameracer40, steel is definitely bottom of the barrel and I would not purposely purchase it.  And I agree with you on not wanting to use EZ track.   
N/S the best that can be bought now, but that said, there is nothing wrong with using brass if you keep it clean which is not as difficult as people can make it out to be.  Especially if you run trains on it with any frequency.  Brass is also a better conductor than N/S.  That also said, if you are restarting from scratch, the way to go is probably buy N/S, unless money is a heavy consideration.
Also, nothing wrong with using "snap" or sectional track as opposed to feeling forced to use flex track.  A lot depends on what you want to layout.  A longstanding manufacturer, whose name begins with "A" and ends in "S" makes very good sectional and flex track to choose from.
Also, nothing wrong with using Code 100 if you like the look.  Nothing says you have to use Code 83 for any reason other than what you like the look of.
I hope this helps ya.

[jbrock27]

PS-And there is nothing wrong with #4 Switches, even if you use 6 axle locos and 50ft cars.  In fact, I don't have problems running those on cheaper "snap switches".

[rogertra]

Lameracer40, steel is definitely bottom of the barrel and I would not purposely purchase it.  And I agree with you on not wanting to use EZ track.   
N/S the best that can be bought now, but that said, there is nothing wrong with using brass if you keep it clean which is not as difficult as people can make it out to be.  Especially if you run trains on it with any frequency.  Brass is also a better conductor than N/S.  That also said, if you are restarting from scratch, the way to go is probably buy N/S, unless money is a heavy consideration.
Also, nothing wrong with using "snap" or sectional track as opposed to feeling forced to use flex track.  A lot depends on what you want to layout.  A longstanding manufacturer, whose name begins with "A" and ends in "S" makes very good sectional and flex track to choose from.
Also, nothing wrong with using Code 100 if you like the look.  Nothing says you have to use Code 83 for any reason other than what you like the look of.
I hope this helps ya.

Guess it depends on your standards.  Do you want a realistic looking model of a railroad, or a railroad model?  I'm probably a model railroad snob and not ashamed of it.  I aim for the standards shown in the articles published in the leading magazines.  However, that's not to say there's anything wrong with a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood and a layout built with code 100 set track.  However, that's not my cup of tea and hasn't been since I was around 16 years old.  Yes, we had model railroads back then.  It's all about what gives the individual modeller the most fun and pleasure.

In my case it's realism, a fixed theme in a set era, 1958 in my case, and closer to scale tolerances.  Hence my suggestion for code 83 minimum rail size, No. 6 switches and flex or hand laid track.

But that's just me and it's not for everyone.

[jbrock27]

Yes Roger, I have been aware of your standards and your work is excellent and impressive!  I think you are meeting those standards you have set for yourself.
And I agree, it comes down to ones standards in what they are looking for to be happy with.

[jbrock27]

I'll add that 'standards' can be dictated by resources.

[rogertra]

I'll add that 'standards' can be dictated by resources.

Yes, this is very true.  Although I'm of retirement age and do draw two pensions, I'm fit enough to continue working and the sort of work I do is both (generally) fun and not too physical.  I'm a theatre/stage/movie technician and freelance stage lighting designer.  As a result, I do have enough "pocket money" to indulge my hobby,  That and an understanding wife helps. 

[JNXT 7707]

I'll add that 'standards' can be dictated by resources.

Yes, definitely. And never forget it is YOUR railroad, and the only rule is that you must enjoy it  

I'll make a plug for Code 100 track though - I find if you have a percentage of older equipment with less than desirable flange contours, it can be more forgiving for running.
I started using it for that reason (and it was less impactful on resources) and have stuck with it. Compared to Code 83, the 83 looks better - but it's not something I notice.

[jbrock27]

I always thought stage lighting could be heavy work.

I, like you JNXT, find that 100 suits my eye fine.  I get more focused on the diesel going around the track and the freight.  But like we all said, to each his own.

[jward]

I'll add that 'standards' can be dictated by resources.

Yes, definitely. And never forget it is YOUR railroad, and the only rule is that you must enjoy it  

I'll make a plug for Code 100 track though - I find if you have a percentage of older equipment with less than desirable flange contours, it can be more forgiving for running.
I started using it for that reason (and it was less impactful on resources) and have stuck with it. Compared to Code 83, the 83 looks better - but it's not something I notice.

I find that those older cars should have their wheelsets changed out to something with a better contour. this is even more important than having all metal wheels. those wheelsets with the extra large flanges are usually of very poor quality, often out of guage and cause a whole host of derailment problems. I refuse to run them on my layout for those reasons.