Minimum rail code query

[C&S]

I've been asked a question on another forum that I can't answer: someone wants to know what the smallest suitable rail code is for G scale.

I think I know of a former layout that was built with code 100 rail, but suspect that the wheel flanges needed turning down for this. Otherwise my guess is that Peco's G scale track may be the smallest on which to run proprietary equipment.

Would anyone like to comment or relate their experiences, please?

 

[Don Gilham]

When I was modelling in OO I used to hate PECO track with a vengeance - funny now, though, I can't praise it highly enough It's robust and looks very nice with the lower profile rail.

And no problem with flanges (But the range available in G45 is a tad limited)

 

[Gizzy]

Code 250 is the smallest for G scale.

You can get Code 200 45mm gauge track from Peco, but this is really for Gauge 1. G scale wheel flanges are too deep for this rail section....

 

[railwayman198]

A friend of mine successfully runs G scale on code 200 rail. He built the track from separate components (from Tenmille I think) and put the chairs inside out to allow the deep flanges to pass through. The pointwork needed a deal of fiddling with though to work well.

 

[railwayman198]

And here is a pic of the code 200 track. I must say the chairs don't look inside out to me but that's what George told me he had done to get it to work. You notice the points have no chairs at all.

 

[Rod Fearnley]

I use Peco G-1 (1/32) track without problem on my RR. Running Aristo, USAT, LGB and Bachman. ???

 

[jacobsgrandad]

I'm running LGB and Roundhouse on Peco 45mm track and never had a problem with flanges

 

[Rhinochugger]

Yeah - the flange depth problem is generally only with LGB wheelsets.

Probably because they reckon to run everything around R1s.

Stick to R3s and anything above, and you can run finer wheel standards.

 

[JonathanJ]

I don't have an outside line at present, but I've used code200 in the past without problems. When I finally get round to another, I was planning to use a mix of 200 and 180 with handbuilt points, and hadn't expected any issues. In the past I built a diorama with code 143 which looked great as lightweight track, but that didn't have any points. Ar some point I'd like to revisit that idea and build an indoor layout the same lines - (comparatively) small rail section, but not finescale flangeways and a minimum radius of 4ft or so.

J.