I'm going with Model Power Code 83 for all the mains and most likely for all the yards too.
RailfanS I decided to go with code 100 because a local MRR club recommended it over code 83 because the equipment stays on or "tracks" better.
Only if you don't lay your track well, i.e., you're sloppy.
Heck, people use code 55 rail sucessfully.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Nobody else mentioned it, so I will:
Paint your track! It will look a lot better, and it isn't hard to do. I'm in N-scale, so I don't have much advice to give in the 83-vs-100 debate. However, on my home layout I've been using code 55, yet for my N-Trak module I went with code 70 (and Peco code 80 turnouts), just for better operational reliability. I don't want to be the "problem module" in the club!
I can definitely see the difference in those sizes, so I decided to paint my code 70 track. Once painted, it actually looks really good! And here's how I did it, super-easy: Two cans of spray paint. One can is actually primer, and it's pure brown (try to match the rusty brown of the sides of real rails). The other can is a bronze/dark brown. Make sure you mask the critical points of turnouts, and then go at it. First step is to spray the primer brown from a low angle, so you get it on the sides of the rail. While wet, wipe off the tops of the rails, to make it easier on yourself later. After this coat dries, apply the bronze... but hold it directly above the track and spray straight down. This will coat the ties but miss the sides of the rails. Again, while fresh wipe off the top of the rails. End result is track that is rusty brown except on the shiny silver top, and ties that are a dark creosote brown!
Of course, you can do this with colors you mix for your airbrush, if you lean that way, but I had no trouble locating the ready-to-go spray cans at a hardware store. If you do paint, you'll find that you can get away with a larger rail code. And if you're worried about operation on painted rails, know that I'm in finicky N-scale where the wheelbases are short and the engines light - and I've never had problems with my trackwork on that module, which is 4 years old now.
HO Code 83 track has a much more 'realistic' look as far as tie spacing and spike detail.
And with that said, I have to admit that for me, it always looks like 'secondary' track instead of mainline track. Now I know I'll get jumped on for this, but its the way these old eyes see it. My own Yuba River Sub is laid with code 100 for the main and code 83 for the secondary and yard track. Both work very well, so I would say that when it comes right down to it, it's all in the eye of the individual beholder. Code 100 can be painted and ballasted to look like good, heavy mainline track (especially when you're modeling something as heavily traveled as Cajon Pass), but if you want to be more 'to scale' in laying your track, I suppose your best bet would be to go with Code 83.
Operationally, I have no problems whatsoever with either size.
However, I would agree with the poster who said to stay away from the Atlas Code 83 turnouts--they need a lot of work to operate well, especially on the points. My recommendation would be either the Walthers/Sinohara turnouts, or even better, the newer Code 83 'streamline' Peco turnouts. I just relaid a lot of my Code 83 yard with Peco, and they're just about bulletproof. Terrific turnouts.
I'd say that the choice is yours. Either one should work well for you.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Contrary to some published opinions, there really is a visible difference between Code 100 flex and Code 83 flex - mostly in the tie dimensions. And yes, even after it's laid and weathered, you will notice the difference.
I use Code 100 in the netherworld, my vast backstage area of hidden thoroughfares and staging, but prefer code 83 (or smaller) for those places that will be visible once the landscape is in place. Both Atlas and Shinohara have contributed to my flex-track supply. Atlas is more cooperative about bending, while Shinohara, once bent to the desired geometry, doesn't try to spring back to straight. Code 100 rail, being larger than Code 83, won't kink as readily and is probably a good choice for a club where the skill of the tracklayers might be suspect. For a home layout, where one person is everything from GM to gandy dancer, Code 83, carefully laid, will pay appearance dividends later.
Since I hand-fabricate my specialwork, I'm a neutral observer in the great turnout brand debate. In my admittedly biased opinion, no commercial product is as good as what I build out of raw rail.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
RailfanS mattr777 I want my new layout to be great and I wanted some advice selecting a company and/or code of track. Welcome, As far as company goes, I prefer Atlas track but DO NOT use their "snap switches" like I did to save money. My layout consist of Nickel-Silver code 100 sectional track, with a few pieces of flex track thrown in where needed. All of it is flawless except the switches which I already mentioned. I decided to go with code 100 because a local MRR club recommended it over code 83 because the equipment stays on or "tracks" better. I've never used code 83 but I've heard that it looks more realistic (But I can't tell the difference). So overall I recommend: 1. Atlas track 2. Not Atlas Turnouts 3. Code 100 or 83, your choice, I look at them as performance (100) or appearance (83) though they both must work because we use them both. Just my , Jamie
mattr777 I want my new layout to be great and I wanted some advice selecting a company and/or code of track.
Welcome,
As far as company goes, I prefer Atlas track but DO NOT use their "snap switches" like I did to save money. My layout consist of Nickel-Silver code 100 sectional track, with a few pieces of flex track thrown in where needed. All of it is flawless except the switches which I already mentioned. I decided to go with code 100 because a local MRR club recommended it over code 83 because the equipment stays on or "tracks" better. I've never used code 83 but I've heard that it looks more realistic (But I can't tell the difference). So overall I recommend:
1. Atlas track
2. Not Atlas Turnouts
3. Code 100 or 83, your choice, I look at them as performance (100) or appearance (83) though they both must work because we use them both.
Just my ,
Jamie
RailfanS My layout consist of Nickel-Silver code 100 sectional track, with a few pieces of flex track thrown in where needed. All of it is flawless except the switches which I already mentioned. I decided to go with code 100 because a local MRR club recommended it over code 83 because the equipment stays on or "tracks" better.
My HO/HOn3 layouts used codes 70, 55, and 40, and the rails didn't need to be larger for trains to stay on the tracks. Code 100 rail is necessary only if you have equipment (usually European-built) with "pizza cutter" wheel flanges. While code 100 is less expensive, many observers, including me, notice the differences in rail sizes and their varying realisms.
Mark
Cape Vincent Southern Railroad
HO scale Horseshoe Curve in 5’x10’
My YouTube
Hi everyone.
I am building an HO layout in a spare room. It will be modeled after the Cajon Pass. My previous layout was a mere 4'X8' tabletop and used sectional track with roadbed. I used this layout primarily to experiment with different types of scenery and the tracks were not much of a concern for me. I want my new layout to be great and I wanted some advice selecting a company and/or code of track. the new layout has different radius turns, grades, tunnels, and turnouts.
Thanks in advance,
-Matt Roberts