General Discussion (Model Railroader)

 I have looked throughout the search engines on these Model Railroader discussion boards. Can either someone lead me to the comments through a link related to David Barrow's comments or commentaries on these boards discussing why he does like code 83 track materials. Or if you know his opinions about why he does not use code 83 track materials, please share why he prefers code 100 track instead of code 83. I would appreciate any and all help.

I don't know his personal opinion, but Code 100 track is cheaper in many cases and easier to find used (therefore, much cheaper) than comparable Code 83 track.

I use Code 100 track because it was cheaper for me as well as easier to work with, and when ballasted and weathered properly, it's hard to tell that it's actually Code 100 track.

Good luck!

I cannot track the article(s), in MR or Model Railroad Planning or Great Model Railroads, but at some point Barrow removed the hand laid Code 70 rail and went with regular commercial Atlas Code 100, with minimal ballast (sometimes none, at most a few grains, and not fastened down).  That was about the same time his buildings became basic white foam core structural shapes rather than model structures per se.  The layout was a representation, not a depiction, and operation was all. 

Cost was clearly not the reason for Barrow.  And he did nothing (such as painting the side of the rail) to minimize the effect of the oversize rail.

I think his stated reason(s) were that he could change around the Code 100 easily, it was more structurally strong on an integral basis meaning he had to do less about fastening it down and could just lay it on the benchwork, in order to facilitate his philosophical goal of constant change of track plan -- he did not want anything, be it fastened rail or scenery, to pose a reason not to change the track plan.

A lot of guys believed and still believe that Barrow was letting a beautiful theory clobber model railroad reality.  But Barrow has stuck with it. 

Dave Nelson

You have asked this question on the forum in multiple threads -- I recognize that you are feeling uncomfortable, but you can only make this decision for yourself.

Many modelers use Code 83 and are happy with it. Many use Code 100 and are happy with it. There really is not much to this beyond personal preference.

Barrow claims that the Code 100 is more robust and since he nails the track down and then pulls it up multiple times as he continually shuffles the deck chairs around in changing his layouts, the track will stand up better. The first place Mr. Barrow mentioned this that I recall was in the July 1998 issue of Model Railroader.

In fact, no less an authority than Mr. Barrow's friend and MR Executive Editor Andy Sperandeo answered this question for you specifically in one of your earlier threads on the topic:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/158507.aspx

I don't believe you will receive a more direct or authoritative answer than this, no matter how many times the question is asked. In that response, Andy noted that sicne the most recent MR article Mr. Barrow has abandoned Code 100 in some of the new layout building Mr. Barrow is doing now and moving back to track that is closer to scale size.

Here is what Mr. Barrow said specifically in the MR editorial referenced above:
"Is Code 100 realistic for HO scale? Not exactly. ... but for better or worse it seems to me that I can build, change and maintain a larger layout much easier with the larger rail."

Many successful modelers disagree with Mr. Barrow's July 1998 comments and find that Code 83 works fine.

I know that you must be having a very difficult time with this decision, since you have been discussing it in multiple threads since at least April. In actual fact, though, you can't really make a mistake here. Code 100 works, and Code 83 works. If price is an issue, Code 100 might be less expensive. If appearance is an issue, many folks like Code 83.

Maybe flip a coin? 

 "Need Direction"

Have you tried Hare Krishna?

(Sorry, its an old joke and I couldn't resist!)

-Kosmo

I can see why some would get a little frustrated with this question from you.

The only way that this can be settled would be to test each one on bare plywood yourself I guess. After all the layout is for YOU, not every dang other person you bump into. Barrows is getting into other things so he's not going to be steadfast either-----not that he ever was, mind you

Test them out--that may be more effective in the long run

Hey guys go a little easy on our friend.  Code 83 versus Code 100 is a very basic decision you need to make first thing, even before DC versus DCC.  (Our N scale friends know the feeling, they have a similar decision to make about rail size too.)  If "everyone" seems to be going Code 83 but a major modeler like David Barrow went with Code 100 that is enough to make one want to really research this.  But reserach is different than analysis paralysis.   

Assuming you are buying new and do not own a full layout's worth of Code 100 track, why not Code 83? Cost is about the same. Choice of manufacturer is about the same.  Availability of components is not an issue.  Except for us geezers with older AHM/Rivarossi locomotives that need Code 100 rail as a minimum, there is no reason to need Code 100.   

I'll go out on a limb here and predict that in a decade or so Code 100 will be quietly phased out.  That might seem unthinkable now, but not so many years ago the quiet phasing out of the horn hook coupler would have seemed unthinkable.  In my early hobby years I recall the veterans saying that the then-new RP-25 wheel contour and flange was a gimmick that people would soon regret and abandon.  The deeper flanges were still an available option then for those who wanted them.  Quietly they went away.

David Barrow is a distinctive personality and his use of Code 100 was consistent with a wide range of other thoughtful decisions and actions and attitudes of his.  It makes little sense to say "I'll follow Barrow's use of Code 100 just because he's David Barrow but I won't follow any of his reasons for doing so: I will fasten and ballast my track very differently than he did and won't keep changing my track plan around like he did." 

You've thought it through, you've heard all sides, you need to decide.  Code 83 is the "standard" HO railsize of now and the immediate future.  Isn't it the way you should go?

Dave Nelson

I have been down the code 100route and I am one of the early code 83 guys handlaying and I was a poorish high school guy. I hand laid because I didnt have the money for expensive switches. All round individual ties and rail and build your own switches far out beat cost wise commercial products.

 That layout I was working is torn down, had to move, hated that.

Today I shelf module all code 83 and everything laid down on homosote spiked down, and spiking still lets you adjust trackplan. NEVER will I nail down track. Perhaps at times I may need to adjust track, but it will not get sceneried till I am satisfied it is good, then ballast glue down etc.  I tinker with buildings, some scenery stuff checking look.

In places I am duplicating real places to some point and they won't be modified in the future.

If your building a layout, do some good planning and make a varied interesting layout that will be fun for a long time and you won't be adjusting track plan often.

 There is just a simple fact that everything in scale does not always work as well as one mihgt think or hope it should. Yes code 83 is much more to scale then code 100 but it has been said many times by many very well schooled model railroaders that code 100 is better functionality wise. Trains seems to run better on a little larger rail.Code 83 is 0.0830 and code 100 is 0.1005 not a lot of difference to the naked eye but in scale size it's a huge difference. From my personal experience it seems easier to ballast code 100 then code 83, not the actual process but the end result seems to turn out a little more user friendly if you will with less work. Maybe it's that slight difference in rail height.

Same can be said for knuckle couplers.It's my understanding that an HO knuckle coupler is slightly larger then scale for the purposes of more secure coupling and better operation. I haven't been able to verify weather or not that is true as I haven't been able to find the correct dimentions of a standard knuckle coupler.

at any rate I'm sure if you were to go around measuring everything mechanical wise on a model railroad you will see that allowances have been made for better operation while sacraficing a little detail.

 The first time I've seen him mention code 100 track was in Sept 1996, in an article describing the roadbed construction of the South Plains MR project layout:

 "As the layout's construction progressed to ballasting, I found Homasote deforms slightly as the white glue dries, creating vertical deflections in the track.  Code 100 track is strong enough to withstand the pressure, but smaller sizes like code 83 and code 70 are affected."  He continues to say he's since switched to white pine for roadbed to eliminate this problem.

 So maybe he started down this path because of his past issues with Homasote?  I've heard some people say homasote dimensions are all over the place (not the homabed stuff produced specifically for model railroading, but the construction grade stuff).

In any case, that extra .017" isn't going to make a huge difference, and I personally would not see any reason to start a new layout using Code 100 track.

He also doesn't ballast it (at least not in any of the articles from the past 15-20 years), and is obviously not that concearned about appearance in those articles.

If mechanical reliability and robustness is your ONLY concearn, you can't go wrong by going with code 100.

I will add that the October, 1997 article which had a "follow up" to the South Plains District layout was the first time I noticed his "minimalist" approach coming on.  This article outlined his "second build" of the South Plains layout, which was extremely minimal.  He only had a little bit of ballast (like, VERY little), and the article was focused very much around mechanical aspects of the layout (which, as a mechanical engineer, I cannot help but enjoy!)

David Barrow's work is some of my favorite model railroading ever featured in the magazine.  I personally absolutely love his pre-minimalistic work.  Then again, I'm a huge Sting fan, and enjoy all of his music, but when push comes to shove, what I really want see in concert is The Police.

 Thanks David,

 You "hit" the heart of my concern. Your statement relative to the phasing out of Code 100 is what is at the heart of my issue. I am attempting to make a layout that will be handled down to my daughter and her grandchildren. I would hate to build my 2 X 8 foot layout in the next two to five years and at the end of those five years or even ten years suddenly find that code 100 track was being phased out. We all know that turnouts and track can break. Therefore, you have stated that Code 100 will be phased out fairly soon just like the hook and horn coupler. Therefore, I guess if what you are saying then I should go with code 83. I like the Atlas code 83 super switches, but again those could be phased in the same time period. I guess longevity of a layout might be perceived as a stupid concern. But it is my concern. Is code 100 going to die in the next decade? I would value what all modelers think. Please don't get frustrated with me. I just value the people on this message board and what they think. You have been so helpful.

wcu boy:

But it is my concern. Is code 100 going to die in the next decade? I would value what all modelers think. Please don't get frustrated with me. I just value the people on this message board and what they think.

Then you'll probably want to refer to the dozen-or-so valued answers to this question you received in your thread titled "Code 100 Longevity Question" from April:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/152598.aspx

I'm not trying to pick on you, but it seems unlikely that there is any more data for you to receive. Just do it.

Any track components sold today could be phased out in ten or fifteen years, regardless of the Code rail used. And pretty much any Code HO track can be joined to any other Code HO track.

The future will never be perfectly clear -- but the past is. Wouldn't it have been more interesting to have made this decision 5 months ago and have been enjoying the construction of the layout in the meantime?

You can relax, though, I won't waste my time or yours with any future posts to any of your future threads (as I am sure there will be) on this topic.

 Cuyama, I need your advice. I was hoping to get some firm answer about how the code 100 track items at Atlas are selling compared to the "perceived" code 83 track sales.. That seems to make the difference if products stay or leave the market. I was just wondering if the Code 100 track was selling equally with the code 83 which seems to be "the hot item."

Maybe a good idea would be to call directly to someone at Atlas who can answer that question more accurately. I think I will call them tomorrow.

Please, cuyama, I am new and I am trying to make smart financial investments. Please do not ignore my future questions and I will try not to repeat myself.

As you were told by Byron, unless you are buying track with built-in roadbed, possible replacement of track in the future should have no bearing on which track you choose today.  Different brands of HO track can easily be inter-mixed, and so can different rail sizes.  I intermix both brands and rail size, and mix that with handlaid track at any given point of a layout.

The only way to guarantee replacements with exact duplicates is to lay in enough spares today for all possible future needs.  Doesn't matter whether it is HO scale track, or computers - things change over the years.  Atlas started with fiber tie flexible track, code 100 brass rail, and turnout kits in the 1950s.  Their Custom-Line and Snap Track geometry came out in the early '60s (possibly late '50s).  As time went on, Atlas dropped their "Regular Line" turnouts, switched to plastic ties on the flex track, changed to nickel silver rail exclusively, changed the frog design in the present code 83 line, added 24" radius curves, added #8 turnouts, and have gone through several manufacturing plants and numerous design changes.  If you bought Atlas track in the 1960s, the replacements you would buy today would not match exactly.  The brass rail vs the nickel silver would present a definite change in appearance, even if all else was the same.

You are fretting about a future you can't control.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

There really is no such thing as a firm answer --yes or no --in this thing. If there is/was a perfect system everyone would be using the same code rails --.

I'm still sticking with the idea of testing a stretch of either on the same board to see how they would perform. Even using the EZtracks or what have you--might give a more robust answer than this