code 100 vs 83

[davekelly]

Simon,

Excellent point about the weight.

[simon1966]

I use code 100 for one reason, and one reason only. I want to be able to run my old Briti***rains that have large flanges. Without this constraint, I would choose code 83 Atlas flextrack with the new Peco US prototype turnouts. The recent switch to metal wheelsets and the purchase of a NMRA standards guage has made a huge differenence to the performance of my pike. Under weight cars, especially empty flat cars, near the front of a long train are a good recipe for derailments also.

[Anonymous]

just thought i would make a comparrison 18 volts at 30 ohms will deliver .6 amps18/30 where as 4.2857 ohms on the other side of your layout will deliver more than a woping 4.1 amps!

[Anonymous]

here is a handy ohms law equation to figure track resistance(R1 XR2/R1+R2) example a 30 ohm track ris. parallel with 5 ohms of say #12 or #10 wire will yeld a total ristance to the power supply of 4.2857 ohms( 30x5=150/ 30+5=35 )150/35= 4.2857 ohmshope this may be of help glenn bob

[Anonymous]

don't forget guys #12 or #10 copper wire conducts sooooo much better than any code rail ever will. glennbob>>

[AntonioFP45]

[;)][swg]

[Don Gibson]

DERAILMENTS are mechanical in nature\ NOT electrical.. MOST happen at switches where there are gaps in the rail.

Electricity is either YES or No and comprised of AMPS (Energty) and VOLTS, which are Intensity (Speed) related. It's effect on your train is V =speed and A=energy consumed.
As you turn up the Voltage it runs faster; and the more engines on the track, the more Energy is used. This is a simplified, but useful explanation.

The Current (Amp) capacity of either code 83 or 100 rail far exceeds the requirements of Model Railroading, however iength can reduce voltage - causing trains to slow down the further away from the power source they get.

Is Code 100 more 'Derailment free' than Code 83??
- Perhaps, on his railroad.

Print-out ANTONIOFP45's words of wisdom on Deraiments, and take to the bank. SAVE.

[AntonioFP45]

Great advice, Rrinker!

A friend of mine built an HO "Folded Dogbone" layout in his spare bedroom with code 83 track. I was amazed as he showed off his track work when he backed up 25 car long freights with six axle engines on the front with no derailments on the 18 radius curves!

At times, whenever he did have a derailment it was the fault of the locomotive or car. Wheels out of gauge, knuckle coupler getting stuck and not swinging, etc.

Good track work is critical for smooth operations. Good car and locomotive maintenance is also a must.

[rrinker]

I have formed a STRONG opionion, right or wrong, that derailments are the fault of sloppy track laying and/or out of gauge wheelsets. Why? Because in setting up some tests of things, I have PURPOSELY done things you should NOT EVER do, like abrubt grade changes right off a turnout. And FLUNG equipment through the resulting trackwork at easily DOBLE scale top speed with no derailments whatsover. On my more carefully laid actual track ont he layout - I can run ANYTHING over it at full throttle, forwards and backwards, with no derailments. And that's all Atlas Code 83 track and turnouts. And that INCLUDES a 4-8-4 brass steam loco and a BLI M1A. Some cars 'bounced' over the turnout frogs - contrary to popular belief, this is NOT because they were 'falling' into the gap int he frog flangeway, it was because the wheels are too tight in back-to-back gauge, as measured with an NMRA standards gauge. Adjusting or replacing the bad wheelsets results in smooth operation.
No offense to anyone, because back when I built my early layouts I had the same kinds of problems, but I wonder just how bad (or rather, how sloppy) the work has to be to cause constant derailments? I'm not workign super-slowly here when laying my track, but I'm not just slapping it down any old way either. I use a straightedge to make straight track straight, the curves I flow by eye. I sight downt he track to make sure the joints align properly. But I don't go nuts. I can push or pull 25+ car trains through at full speed, either direction.
I don't mean to be harsh, but there are a lot of complaints blaming a particular brand of track or some other factor for a lot of woes. In my experience, it's either sloppy track work, or, like I said, out of gauge wheels. It doesn't matter the brand or quality of the rolling stock - I have found bad wheelsets on everything from Athearn Blue Box cars to Kadee. Notice in a lot of MR reviews "all but one wheelset were in gauge." That one wheelset WILL cause headaches if you don't fix it, guaranteed!

--Randy

[Anonymous]

The reason that I went with code 83 was the selection of turnouts. More variety in curved and straight switches then any other code.

Their isn't going to be enought voltage drop between code 83 and 100 to worry about. I crammed a four year electrical engineering degree into five years and trust me the voltage drop isn't a problem, but bad track and bad trucks are. Since it was the same car at the same place, I'd bet the car was at fault. Try turning the car around and see if that makes a difference. Just from experience I'd say one of the trucks was "crabbing".

Bob

[NevinW]

I visited a truely beautiful, huge N&W layout this weekend that is incredibly well done. To my surprise, the entire layout is done with code 100 track. After it is painted and ballasted, it is really not readily apparent that it is bigger. I am thinking that my next layout will be code 100 as it think it is slightly more stable and easier to lay without kinks. - Nevin

[grayfox1119]

Technically speaking, resistance is a function of cross sectional area of a conductor. Tracks, being metal, are naturally a conductor. If you reduce the area of metal in ANY direction keeping all else the same, you have reduced this conductor's ability to carrying current.

Practically speaking, even if you had as much as .05 ohms difference between code 100 and code 83 per linear foot of track, and that is a lot of resistance, at 8 amps per foot, that would result in a drop in voltage of only 0.4Vdc. E=IR where E is your voltage, I is your current and R is your measured resistance..
As stated previously, the right thing to do is to have enough track feeders from your main DC supply bus wiring, and code of track won't make one bit of difference as far as operation of your equipment is concerned.

[AntonioFP45]

I was going to Code 100 originally, but after having looked at the Atlas, Walthers, and Peco products, I've decided to go with code 83! Altas flex track and Peco switches.

10-4! [:D][:D]

[greatn]

Thanks for all the replys......This was the way I was leaning. With the EasyDCC system that was in use plus 8Amps, plus all the feeder wires there would have been no voltage drop as was evident by the flawess running of 4 engines. AND there was only one shinohara #6 that was causing the problems. Thanks everyone and happy modeling

[ndbprr]

Sure Code 100 will carry more power than code 83. Don't bigger wires have the capacity to handle more current than smaller wires? BUT!!!!! We are talking the high end and 16 volts ac with a half amp is nowhere near the current limits of either one. Not going to use jumpers on every piece of track than code 100 will carry the current farther but not adifference easily discernable.

[Anonymous]

If it was the same box car that was derailing, my guess is it might be the box car.

Andrew

[Jetrock]

In terms of derailments: Code 100 is a little thicker and maybe a little less likely to kink, but the difference is minimal. If one was using rolling stock with particularly thick flanges, Code 83 might cause more problems but that generally won't be a problem with RP-25 or other half-decent wheelsets.

As to current flow, there's no difference in collection of current from the track to the engine because the difference is in height of track, not the width, so it doesn't result in any better transmission that way. If you power your layout entirely via one set of terminals on one side of your layout, Code 100 might hold a skoshe more power so things won't dip quite so low when your train is on the far side of the pike, but not all that much more--and anyone who uses feeders with any sort of frequency will not run into that problem at all, even with considerably finer gauges of track.

Personally I use Code 100 because it's cheap, the really sharp turnouts I prefer only come in Code 100, and it all gets buried in street trackage anyhow. But personally I'd wager that problems with track usually happen because of defects in the nut that laid the track, not the code-gauge of the track...Proto:87 freaks whose HO-scale equipment runs flawlessly on Code 55 track are proof of this!

[Anonymous]

The code should have nothing to do with the current flow, especially if you use a bus wire around the layout. The only difference between code 100 and code 83 is the height of the rail. This may cause problems if the wheel flanges are so deep that they hit the track, but I have not heard of this too often with code 83.

[greatn]

Today I was visiting my lts(local train store) and there was a fellow train buff there running his new Broadway Limiteds. Once or twice during the next half hour a boxcar derailed(pretty good for a main line which is 499ft) and he made the comment that if it was code 100 not 83 AND there were rerailers installed here and there then this wouldn't happen. I have seen this topic beaten to death here, however, he made the comment that the engines would have run better on code 100 because the larger rails allowed more current flow. That I have never heard of before. Any comments?