I'd add that my view is that I'd maybe see '83 as more future-proof, possibly.
Also for peco the turnout check-rails are metal not black plastic and the ties and their interface with the rail is more finely modeled.
I used peco 83 for years without issue, although I do know that many exhibition modular modellers here in the UK opt for code 100 as it's seen as more robust.
In praise of code 100 this layout uses Shinohara code 100 and I think it looks perfect for the modern US prototype.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55nk-bhCir0
Ringo58 Building my new switching layout and I'm between code 100 or 83. My past layout was all atlas sectional code 83. I'm going to be using peco and wanted to get a good opinion from people who use 100. I like code 83 but the PECO 83 turnouts are $10 more than the 100. Is it worth it to spend a little more for 83?
Building my new switching layout and I'm between code 100 or 83. My past layout was all atlas sectional code 83. I'm going to be using peco and wanted to get a good opinion from people who use 100. I like code 83 but the PECO 83 turnouts are $10 more than the 100. Is it worth it to spend a little more for 83?
On layouts that depict heavy hauling the code 100 track would be accurate verses lighter loads using the code 83, but to answer your question I would use the 100. there is a trasition piece of track that is 83 on one end and 100 on the other. that way you keep 83 laid track and new addition track would be 100.
If it's a small switching layout, why not hand lay the track? Get a FastTracks jig (or two), some pc and wood ties, some ME rail, and go at it. I have ~30 turnouts on my layout and I built them all. They operate flawlessly. The code 83 jigs also work with code 70 ME rail, so you can build either/both. I have a #6 turnout jig and a #4 wye. I'm sad I don't have any more to build, I really enjoyed it! The two jigs (~$100 each), amortized over 30 turnouts, plus rail/ties/spikes, is less than $10 per turnout.
jlwittIf it's a small switching layout, why not hand lay the track?
The OP's profile says he is 20 years old, so more power to him. At my age, I'd rather just chew on track spikes, then lay my own track, while I mail order track.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
I started in the hobby when life was much simpler. You chose code 100 or built model airplanes. The second layout offered two choices and I was bitten by the code 83 bug. The third layout was/is a switching layout with a lot of in-street running, a lot of sidings and track shared with a fleet of streetcars. C83 gave me all kinds of grief, especially in 'push' maneuvers. Out came the code 83 and the Atlas #4's. What helped the decision was Peco's code 100 turnouts. No need for switch machines and the need to hide them under the table - at least those close to the layout edge - and especially for those in in-street running. I overcame the toy-train stigma of sectional track and like it because it provides an accurate radius for my streetcars (I use 15" radius, and yes for all you bigshots with minimum 32" radius Atlas does make it. Yeah, I'm not crazy about the tie size, but again, for the track buried in the street I couldn't care if the ties xame in pink. For the rest of the track, I paint the ties and rail and ballast and it's a done deal. No derailments.
Also, a big decider was at the time I was thinking about changing to Peco, the only turnout in code 83 was their wye.
Bottom line, don't beat yourself up over the code. The nitpickers will move on to another part of your layout to criticize. If I were building a switching layout I would go with Peco and determine the code by the availability of turnouts.
I mean you can do both, there are transition joiners that can switch between Code 100 to Code 83 even down to Code 70 if you really want it. Create a cool effect with a heavy Code 100 mainline that slowly drops down to a Code 70 rail spur.
Also remember if you choose to follow a modular standard on any future project, different modules have preset standards, Free-Mo for example is Code 83 on mainline rated modules and can be Code 70 on branchline. I don't know what the NMRA "Triple track" module standard is, but it likely is Code 100. All the codes have their purposes. 83 is my personal favorite, but many people are just as happy with 100.
From a usual viewing distance of two feet (or a little more), I doubt that anyone can really tell the difference between painted, weathered and properly ballasted code 83 and code 100 track, unless the are laid side by side.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Tinplate Toddler From a usual viewing distance of two feet (or a little more), I doubt that anyone can really tell the difference between painted, weathered and properly ballasted code 83 and code 100 track, unless the are laid side by side.
I agree.
Plus, code 110 wheels, which are the norm, are too wide. Smaller rail just emphasizes that even more. Unless you're into proto87 with scaled down wheels, I don't think it matters much.
Paul
IRONROOSTER Tinplate Toddler From a usual viewing distance of two feet (or a little more), I doubt that anyone can really tell the difference between painted, weathered and properly ballasted code 83 and code 100 track, unless the are laid side by side. I agree. Plus, code 110 wheels, which are the norm, are too wide. Smaller rail just emphasizes that even more. Unless you're into proto87 with scaled down wheels, I don't think it matters much. Paul
Guys, I have used C-70 before and the wide .110 wheels wasn't noticable under normal "birds eye" operating viewing.
I agree weathered C-100 track doesn't look that big.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
That being the case, why was code 83 or 70 introduced? Afterall, it all looks the same, so it is said.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Hmmm. My model railroad includes rolling stock with "oversized" wheels, couplers, grab irons, etc. The vehicles and figures are static. Plenty of vehicles don't have drivers in them. The color from the led lights is all wrong for representing lighting from my modeled era. The layout lighting is from lights all along above the layout, not from a point source like the sun. Once completed, the water in my river won't flow. The "glass" in building windows is too thick. No realistic smoke from smokestacks. The ballast is likely oversized. The railroad ties probably are too. I'm not going to get up in arms over slightly oversized rail.
Mike
I disagree. I can usually tell the difference right away on an HO/HOn3 layout - and it's even more noticeable in N. But that could be because I use the smaller rail sizes in HO/HOn3, so the larger size looks out of place.
That said, I have never knocked people for using oversize rail on their layouts. It's a matter of priorities. There are many who will not use curved or custom turnouts because they are not "prototypical". For the most part, the many are right. But track that "flows" through smooth curves right through the turnouts looks even more protoypical to me at the normal viewing distances.
I'm glad we have choices.
Fred W
riogrande5761That being the case, why was code 83 or 70 introduced? Afterall, it all looks the same, so it is said.
Jim, That battle cry has been around since C83 was introduce. You would not believe the debates over C100 vs C83 vs C70 back in the 60s.
C100 was needed for deep flange wheels, C83 match the RP25 wheels and thus C83 squeezed out C70 and became the new defacto standard for "serious" modelers.. C70 was considered to light for main line rail.
For my for 66-70 ISLs I used C70 and wheels that followed RP25.
I'm planning on using C70 on my new ISL.
There is a perceptable difference between code 70 and code 100 rail, but not really between code 83 and code 100 rail. In N scale, the difference between code 55 and code 80 rail is quite obvious. IMHO, code 83 is a waste of money, better to go code 70 rail, if you don´t like code 100.
Water Level Route Hmmm. My model railroad includes rolling stock with "oversized" wheels, couplers, grab irons, etc. The vehicles and figures are static. Plenty of vehicles don't have drivers in them. The color from the led lights is all wrong for representing lighting from my modeled era. The layout lighting is from lights all along above the layout, not from a point source like the sun. Once completed, the water in my river won't flow. The "glass" in building windows is too thick. No realistic smoke from smokestacks. The ballast is likely oversized. The railroad ties probably are too. I'm not going to get up in arms over slightly oversized rail.
+1
Well said
MikeThat is the best description of my model railroad I’ve seen!!! Right on the money.When 99% of my visitors can’t tell any difference in the above discrepancies’ what difference does the .017” rail height make.I went with code 83 in 1988, for me it was new and wanting to go with the latest stuff I did it to it. Not having any experience with the new to me smaller rail and because I had a box of Atlas code 100 track I used it in my hidden areas. I’ve never had any problems with either.I’m obviously not a rivet counter so the .017” didn’t do anything for me but I had the latest and greatest track going for the 1990s, and at the time I was just turning 50. At 80+ who cares, it is just a model railroad. I’ve never in my 69 years of HO model railroading had anyone say anything about something being out of scale.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.