track code

[steamman2]

Thanks guys for all the feed back. Maybe I still havent deceided code 100 or 83 but I sure enjoyed your input. I just framed up my layout over the weekend. Now to finalize track design, scenery etc.

[wjstix]

I'm sort of going backwards I guess, I started in HO about the time Walthers came out with their code 83 line, so used code 83 for almost twenty years. Now that I'm planning a new layout (in a new house) I'm going to use Code 100 Bachmann "Tru-Track" (sp??). Kato and Atlas both make track-with-roadbed with code 83, but their selection of turnouts, curves, crossings, etc. is very limited compared to Bachmann's line.

[simon1966]

There is no doubt in my mind that one is making a compromise when choosing code 100 track.

Price, availability, use of old equipment are valid reasons for making that compromise.  I started with code 83, realized quickly that my old Hornby's from my childhood would not run on it, so decided to make the compromise.  To my eye it is OK when ballasted and painted.  A smaller code would be better, but I am not willing to give up on my oldies.

So decide what is important to you and compromise if necessary.

[jbloch]

Since I'll be doing my first layout, I plan on using Code 83 for all of the reasons discussed here.  Also, I'm not sure there's more variety of turnouts/slips in code 100; look at the Walther's website and check all that's available in Peco/Walthers.  Having said that, our club has code 100, and with ballasted track, it looks fine to me;  if I'd started out and had a layout in code 100 I certainly wouldn't consider changing over to code 83.

Jim

[fwright]

I personally prefer a mix of rail sizes to match prototype practice.  Depending on the era modeled, codes 83, 70, and 55 are appropriate for class 1 railroads in HO.  Sidings often use smaller rail (and space ties a little further apart) than main line track.  Yards and industry spurs use smaller rail still.  Code 83 is pretty accurate for 132lb rail used for mainlines from the 1930s on.  Code 70 represents 100-110 lb rail, which was used extensively on mainlines in the 1910-1920s era.  Code 55 represents 75 lb rail which was mainline from about 1885-1900.

Micro Engineering makes flex track in all 3 rail sizes in HO.  Commercial turnouts are available in code 70 and 83, and can be hand laid, custom made, or assembled from kits in code 55.

Tie size and spacing also affects our perception of the size of the track.  Compare Atlas code 83 and code 100 track.  The narrower ties help a great deal with perceiving the code 83 track as more "realistic".

Shimming under the ties is the easiest way to match the different rail heights IMHO.  Others use transition rail joiners or other arrangements.

Lastly, we tend to view our model track from a higher angle than we see prototype track.  When looking down on track, rail head width has more impact on perceived size than when looking at track from the side.  Model rail tends to be a little thicker in the head than strict scale would dictate, and is much thicker in the web.  Luckily, we rarely see the web.  For these reasons, I like to use the smallest model rail size which will reasonably represent the prototype in the selected setting. 

Track is a model, too.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W 

[selector]

I use Code 100 because I am still clumsy and new in this hobby, and it is cheaper and more forgiving.  It also looks darned good, all things aside.   However, finally, now that I am taking some better photos, I am starting to see the difference.  The Code 100 rail looks huge in photos.

If you want foolproof track in hidden places where you don't want to have to reach in and correct problems, then lay Code 100...well!  My view, more and more, is that Code 83 is the better choice for photos.  I suppose once your eye and brain accept that the Code 100 is a bit large, it will begin to look large all the time.  I'm not there yet, but it sure is evident to me in photos where the rails pass under the lens.

 

[Bob grech]

I might be in the minority, but I would have to disagree with those who say there is little difference between code 100 and 70.  If you don't thing so, try a side by side comparision. You'll notice that the code 70 not only looks more prototypical than code 100, but makes your equipment look more massive, and your scenery more impressive. Sure code 100 is cheaper and less complicated, but so was the 3-rail Lionel track we grew up with as kids. My 2 cents....

[el-capitan]

I would use c83. Some say that you can't tell the difference without a ruler, I can however and have never liked the looks of anything that large. I am in Oscale and use c148 which is the equivalent of c83 in HO.

From what I have seen, c83 is becoming much more popular in the HO community and there are many different components available for purchase. Since you are new I assume all of your equipment is also new, so you won't need to worry about the larger wheel flanges of yesteryear. You will save money with c100 but I am learning that if I spend the right amount of time and money in the beginning, this hobby is much more enjoyable.

[cacole]

DCC Friendly turnouts are a myth -- all better quality turnouts (Peco, Shinohara, etc.) work just fine with DCC, so there's no need to be concerned about that aspect of it.  The new Atlas code 83 turnouts, which are made in China, seem to be of much higher quality than their code 100 products.  Peco is made in England, and Walthers/Shinohara is also of Chinese origin.

[steamman2]

Sorry, I screwed up. I meant to say code 83. If I use code 100 will I have a hard time getting good looking turnouts DCC friendly. I have been told that I dont need to worry about DCC frindly turnouts even if I wire with DCC as long as the points have enough clearance so as not to short out on the passing wheels?

[jeffrey-wimberly]

I use code 100 myself. That way I can run my older stuff without worrying about the wheel flanges hitting the ties. Also, there's only a very small difference in rail height between code 100 and code 83. After the scenery and ballast are in, no one is going to notice the difference unless it's some rivet counter measuring the rail with a ruler. Also, the code 100 costs less, saving you money, and certain track components such as turnouts, crossovers, slip switches, etc, are easier to find. Use code 70 if you want to, but you'll be quite limited in what you can do.

[cacole]

That is entirely up to you based on which one you think looks best.  I use code 83.  Turnouts and crossovers become harder to find and more expensive when you get down to code 70, and some locomotives' or rolling stock wheel flanges may give you problems.

[steamman2]

As a newbe so many thoughts and questions. What code of track for HO should I use on a new 17x10 layout, code 100 or code 70?