HO Track 83 vs 100

[Anonymous]

I have been away from model railroading for 25 years. Wow what a change and education I'm getting. After reading about diffrent tracks in MR Oct. I'm not sure what to use. I like the Atlas track , But un sure to use 100 or 83 , Can any one help me make up my mind ? I'm starting from scratch and have much to learn.

[Anonymous]

If I had to start again, I would go for Code 83 flex. I currently use Code 100 sectional... oh well. If I was trying to be true to my "prototype" and era, I would go for something even lighter, like Code 70 or even 55.

Try a search on this forum (and others) to see what information has been shared in the past (more than you'd ever care to read, I'll bet!).

Andrew

[Anonymous]

For most modeling purposes code 83 or smaller will do just fine. The only time I would recommend using code 100 would be if you were modeling a modern era heavy used mainline. Personally, I prefer the Walther's brand code 83 as it is offers the best realism and realiability for the money.

[tomwatkins]

I like code 83. I use Atlas code 83 flextrack and Walthers turnouts. The smaller profile of code 83 is more realistic than code 100, but it's still easy to work with and fairly sturdy.

[Anonymous]

Is there any real differance between 83 and 100 other than looks?

[Anonymous]

Fastrakr...

I am sure you have heard this before, but Code 83 is 83/1000" high, and code 100 is (you guessed it) 100/1000" or 1/10" high. Different manufacturers' versions are slightly different. Opinion seems to be that the Atlas flex in either size is the most flexible. Others flex, but don't go back easily, so if you make a mistake, you can't just let it return to straight...

Code 100 in HO would represent the newest, heaviest rail in use in the 1:1 world. If you are picky about such things, and don't run a modern layout, Code 100 would simply be too big... In my era (1920s & 30s) I really should be using Code 70 or even 55.

Andrew

[cp1057]

Chris,

Are you using any older engines or rolling stock from your previous foray into model RR'ing? The reason I ask is that some equipment have unusually deep flanges in the wheels that can bottom out on code 83 track. Most of the better quality stuff today will run on code 83 just fine. I heard somewhere that IHC steam locos don't like code 83, don't know for sure.

Personally I use code 100 because I already have a large investment in code 100 turnouts that are reused when my layout is rebuilt. Also I find that most of the code 83 stuff is more expensive and price is of paramount concern to po' folk like me.

Painting the sides of the rails (not the top!) a dark brown or rust colour is always worth doing: it's more realistic-looking and dark-coloured objects always look smaller.

Charles
Hillsburgh Ont

[Anonymous]

I am doing a Steam era layout and wold like to use Peco .83 track with their turn outs and turn out switches.Can anyone offer their expert opinion?

[Anonymous]

Atlas Code 83 flex track looks great and is easy to work with. However after laying track on my new layout I discovered that some of my Athearn passenger cars did not negotiate the # 6 turnouts or the Warren Truss Bridge. I considered re-wheeling the Athearn Cars with metal wheels (which I planned to do eventually) but before buying I tested my Athearn Locomotves and found that most of the locomotives did not negotiate the switches or bridges. The Code 83 Track is still being used however I had to replace the switches.

[Anonymous]

cp1057 hit the nail on the head. Deep Flanges can probably have problems on code 83.

I have been in the hobby for near 32 years and I prefer code 83. The engines look bulkier and more "correct" on the track. The HO crew does not need to use a ladder to get into the cab. Or reach head high to get to a driving rod during a stop.

The one thing I do miss is the prototypical "Clickety Clack" Sectional track is ok, but there must be a way to replicate that sound.

Good Luck

Lee

[Anonymous]

Peco does not make code 83 track to my knowledge, I use code 100 Peco turnouts, They also make code 75. I would use code 75 if more manufactures made this size.
William

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by inletjoe

I am doing a Steam era layout and wold like to use Peco .83 track with their turn outs and turn out switches.Can anyone offer their expert opinion?

Well, it's not an expert opinion... I have an "all steam" layout (1920s and 30s) and Code 83 would represent the heaviest rail in use at that time. See http://www.trains.com/content/dynamic/articles/000/000/000/347ybfns.asp for more info, and click on the diagram. Some parts of the "real world" railways used rail as light 55lbs per yard! Earliest rails were wood!

Anyway... it seems likely that Code 83 would represent fairly common heavy line rail for steam.

Andrew

[BR60103]

For inletjoe:
I'm using a wide variety of track on my layout -- a lot of recycled Peco code 100. My latest expansions are in code 75. I agree with my dealer who observed "They got it right this time." The code 75 seems to be better designed than the code 100.
I run a lot of old British stock with large flanges, often under-gauge, and I find they tolerate the code 75 quite well.
The track is a bit more delicate than code 100, but it still comes up for recycling without much damage.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar
The one thing I do miss is the prototypical "Clickety Clack" Sectional track is ok, but there must be a way to replicate that sound.

Couldn't you just use a Dremel to cut gaps in the flextrack to create "gaps" and then solder a small guage wire on the inside of the rail? I sort of remember seeing something like this in all the articles I've read. The cilckety clack sound is certainly awesome.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pezagent

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar
The one thing I do miss is the prototypical "Clickety Clack" Sectional track is ok, but there must be a way to replicate that sound.

Couldn't you just use a Dremel to cut gaps in the flextrack to create "gaps" and then solder a small guage wire on the inside of the rail? I sort of remember seeing something like this in all the articles I've read. The cilckety clack sound is certainly awesome.

You don't have to cut all the way through... Just the railhead. If you are really detail oriented, you can do the cuts every 39 feet, and add the plates that bolt the rails together. I don't know who sells them, but I know they are available.

Andrew

[dekemd]

I think the NMRA website has a comparison of the different rail codes. Code 83 translates to about 132-136 lb rail. Code 100 to around 155-170 lb rail.

Derrick

[jrbarney]

Christopher,
Andrew "Mason Jar" said he knew rail joiners were available. I've done a cut and paste of my answer to an earlier question in this forum. It was just before you joined (on 30 September), so I suggest that when you have some spare time, read some of the earlier queries and responses. There's a wealth of information out there.
"Precision Scale Company shows Code 40 tie plates in their catalogue. Item HO-4974 for a package of 20 brass tie plates, item HO-4973 for a package of 40 Delrin tie plates . . . . .Precision Scale also shows Code 40 Fisher type rail joiners, if you also need them. Details West <http://www.detailswest.com> also has fish plates/rail joiners in both 2 and 3 bolt versions." Precision Scale doesn't have an online presence so you'll have to see if your LHS has one, or buy one. Good luck.
Who knows, maybe Andy can promote an article on super detailed track, not that any of us are "rivet counters."
Bob

[Anonymous]

I am running an IHC Camelback on Micro Engineering hand laid rail and turnouts with no problems.

Spike

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by masonjar

Well, it's not an expert opinion... I have an "all steam" layout (1920s and 30s) and Code 83 would represent the heaviest rail in use at that time. See http://www.trains.com/content/dynamic/articles/000/000/000/347ybfns.asp for more info, and click on the diagram. Some parts of the "real world" railways used rail as light 55lbs per yard! Earliest rails were wood!........................

Hi, Masonjar

I'll be using Code 83 as well but it's important to note that there was at least one prototype exception where using Code 100 would actually be appropriate.

The Pennsylvania Railroad used 155 pound rail on some of their very heavily used mainlines.[;)] While looking through a Don Ball railroad book, I saw a color photo of a Pennsy mainline where this rail was used. Wow! IT WAS TALL! Climbing up on a locomotive where this monstrous rail was used must have been a challenge for a short legged railroader. [:p]

If I'm not mistaken, this rail remained up until the 1970s.

[Anonymous]

It is mentioned above that Peco does not make a line of code 83 track. They have just introduced a NEW LINE of code 83 products. I have not seen them, but my familiarity with Peco quality makes me believe it will be top notch. The price may be the put off, however. The turnouts are priced at about $26 or $27 EACH. Their code 100 turnouts are eight to ten dollars cheaper and have matched up well with Atlas and Micro Engineering code 100 track.