I used Code 100 on the recent re-build because of the cost of the PECO turnouts. Much cheaper for code 100 and a better variety. As far as derailments, unless you have pizza cutter flanges on old rolling stock or loco's, there isn't any difference.
Springfield PA
I have long narrow staiging yards (Atlas Code 83) and every 6 feet I insert an Atlas 9" rerailer section which takes care of possibe derailments. Most of my staging yards are also utilized as active staging (fiddle) yads so the rerailer sections also help in placing rolling stock on the track.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
You need to check out NHS hobbies for track prices, right now anything over 100.00 is free shiping which makes the price alot cheaper. Thats where I got all my atlas code 83 track and switches. Jim.
I built Phase 1 of my layout with Code 100 and Phase 2 with Code 83. I see no difference in reliability. Code 83 looks nicer to me, but Code 100 is cheaper. I used the Walthers transition tracks where they come together, but I could just have butted the two against each other and adjusted the height with a thin shim of plastic.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I'm also in Las Vergas and since it is so dry here I don't expect my track to buckle due to weather changes so rail gaps are not a big issue for me as long as my subroad bed is already climatetized to my house. Personally I don't get 50 degree temp swings in my house so your layout must be in a garage or something similar. No HO clubs here that I can find.
BNSF modern
I use Atlas Code 100 (and a bunch of other Code 100 from a variety of sources) for staging. Since my visible track is Atlas Code 83 (on concrete ties - it's a prototype thing) I, too, had the transition question in mind.
I use latex caulk to anchor track to roadbed. Where the Code 100 meets the Code 83 I cut adequate grooves under the rail ends, slide Atlas 'universal' rail joiners on both and smooth the joint under a heavy chunk of flat steel. Did that on a trial length 3 Las Vegas summers ago, and have had flawless operation since in spite of 100 degree seasonal temperature swings (and, frequently, 50 degree swings in 12-15 hours.)
Our friends at Atlas made the Code 83 ties 0.17 inch thicker than the Code 100 ties, so the railheads come out level. How much shimming might be needed to level Peco turnouts with the Atlas flex deponent knoweth not - I hand-lay my specialwork and shim as necessary.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
wabash2800 You can use the transition track or specially made transition rail joiners (expensive) or use a code 100 rail joiner and smash and solder the end under the code 83 rail to get it to match with the code 100 ( a lot cheaper).
You can use the transition track or specially made transition rail joiners (expensive) or use a code 100 rail joiner and smash and solder the end under the code 83 rail to get it to match with the code 100 ( a lot cheaper).
I make my own transition pieces. I get a piece of Atlas code 100 snap track, a piece of Atlas code 83 snap track, and a package of Atlas code 83 to 100 rail joiners. The rail joiners are not that expensive. I cut each piece of snap track in half, join the code 100 to the code 83 with the transition joiners, and solder the joint. No smashing of the code 100 joiner is required.
Atlas was kind enough to make the code 83 ties thicker so that the top of rail elevation of both the sectional track pieces comes out the same.
I plan to use code 100 flex track on my helix, primarily because I already have a bunch. My staging yard will be exposed and probably will be converted into a sceniced portion, even though it is in another room. I will probably use code 83 for that reason. I plan to smash the ends of the rail joiners and solder it to the code 83 track.
I would say today's code 83 track like Walthers and Model Power, etc. is reliable but as pointed out the code 100 is relatively cheaper but have you noiced the jump in the price of track lately! I use all different sizes of rail on my layout down to code 55 but I like to use the Atlas code 100 on hidden track and in the helixes. I like the fact that the one rail slides and that it flexes to whatever track line I want and already had holes in the ties to spike it down.
To me, laying Micro Engineering code 83 in a helix would be overkill and a pain as I would have to pre-bend it.
Thanks for the replies! Maybe I should do it for cost alone - Walthers has Peco code 100 curved turnouts on sale right now for $22 each! Way better than the $42 each for Walthers code 83 or even $37 for Peco code 83 curved turnouts! Plus the flex track price difference - I have a small layout plan, but it will add up... and I'm going to be on a tight budget.
One more question - should I spring for the transition pieces mentioned above (would need 4 of them) or just use the transition rail joiners? I would think the transition pieces would be better...
P. nut.
Most people use the code 100 Atlas flex because it is less expensive then the code 83. As for reliability there is not much difference. You can still derail on code 100. Older wheels sets had deep flanges and most of them would hit the tie plates on code 83. The last 30 years the wheel profile has become better and the pizza cutter flanges have almost disappeared.
Pete.
I am also a P.nut.
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
jamnest My previous layout used Atlas Code 100 for staging yards and Walther's Code 83 for the visable part of the layout. Walther's makes a 6" Code 100 to Code 83 transition track which I used. At the time I built the layout, Atlas did not have much to offer in Code 83. My present layout is all Atlas Code 83, including staging. I buy my flex track in bulk (100) packs. I am on my third box!! I use Atlas and Walther's Code 83 turnouts on the layout with no problems. I like the Walther's Code 83 rail joiners over the Atlas Code 83 rail joiners.
My previous layout used Atlas Code 100 for staging yards and Walther's Code 83 for the visable part of the layout. Walther's makes a 6" Code 100 to Code 83 transition track which I used.
At the time I built the layout, Atlas did not have much to offer in Code 83. My present layout is all Atlas Code 83, including staging. I buy my flex track in bulk (100) packs. I am on my third box!! I use Atlas and Walther's Code 83 turnouts on the layout with no problems. I like the Walther's Code 83 rail joiners over the Atlas Code 83 rail joiners.
I've used nothing but code 83 in the past (Walthers turnouts and Atlas flex track) - my current plan has hidden staging that will be hard to get to, so I'm wondering if it would be smart to use the code 100 in the hidden areas to lessen my chances of having an problems...
I cannot see why code 100 would be more reliable - It does cost less! Good track laying skills are more important. Like a previous poster noted, you can get very good prices on bulk purchases of track. My present layout has code 100 for most of the layout, and code 83 on the branch line. If I build a new layout, it will be all code 83(including staging).
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Is it really much better to use code 100 over code 83 as far as reliability against derailments? Thinking of transitioning to code 100 for my hidden staging in my layout plan and wonder if it makes much difference over code 83... Peco curved code 100 turnouts are on sale at Walthers right now