I realize the responses to this will likely be just informed opinions, but I'm curious as to what others are thinking and why. I have a layout in my present home which is Code 100 and all my extra stuff (track joiners, etc.) are for this track type. I'll be moving to a new home in a short time and have already built the benchwork for the new layout (9 x 12 room) and have a ways to go before track will be installed. I had strongly considered doing this in Code 83 as it and the RR ties look a bit more realistic, but I'm not so sure anymore. I try and model with a reasonably close approximation to prototype, but am not so anal that I spend hours making sure every hand grab, vent and paint scheme is as close to prototype as possible (I personally think life is too short for that and there is medication out there for those of you with severe OCD--but that is another story ). Does anyone have any strong feelings and if so, the reason for them as to one track code over the other? I suspect the Code 100 is a bit cheaper, but probably not enough to make that huge a difference. Any thought you all might have would be greatly appreciated and thoroughly reviewed!
as you expected, this is an opinoin. i have been using code 100 for the past 45 years on 5 different layouts over that time. it is a mixture of atlas, peco, and shinohara flex track with shinohara and peco switches. the current layout is nearly complete as far as track laying is concerned with over 100 switches or turnouts if you prefer and over two and a half scale miles of main line. the main yard is double ended with the shortest of 12 tracks holding about 25 40' cars. i rarely have an engine stall and almost zero derailments. (unless i run though a switch) brag-brag-brag
i could probably achieve the same results with code 83 but why change anything now? granted the peco switches and atlas flex track are not exactly prototypical in appearance but i am willing to trade off on that for economy and bullet proof operation.
i think code 100 and the brands of track i am using look just fine when painted and ballasted. if you are concerned about the appearance, you could use the code 83 up front and the code 100 where it is viewed from farther away. but, most people look at the trains instead of the track anyway.
after all, i bought most of this stuff back when i could afford it and shudder to think what it would cost to make the change at today's prices now that i am retired.
grizlump
DUMP CODE 100. Code 83 is more realistic in not only size but looks - code 100 ties are oversized, ugly and unrealistically-colored. If you're starting anew with a layout, just go full bore into Code 83. It's no longer "brand new"; Code 83 has been on the market for some 25 years, and there's enough code 83 track out there for anyone's needs.
The *only* reason to stick to Code 100 is if you're expanding an existing layout that already has Code 100 rail, or conforming to a module's or club's standards. Otherwise, it's just like analog TV, it's had it's day. It's time to progress. There's a reason why model railroad manufacturers come out with innovations - to make the hobby more enjoyable and models more realistic. Remember when everyone was using brass track? We've all since moved on from that. Code 100 was made for train sets. Code 83 was made for *model railroads*.
I switched from HO to N scale a couple years ago, the exact same thing is going on with Code 80 vs Code 55. I've been building a new layout, so it's Code 55 all the way (and Code 40 in some sidings).
My personal preference is for handlaid track spike to wood ties using very small spikes. I use code 70, 55, and 40 rail. My layouts are small, generally less than 20 turnouts total, and the time spent laying track is not inordinate. The extra realism and fun I have running a train over handlaid track is considerable.
But I do not have any left over stocks of code 100, either. I have a very limited amount of Atlas code 83, a couple of Shinohara code 70 turnouts, and a few sticks of ME code 70 and 55 flex in both HOn3 and dual gauge. It's enough to get me started running trains while I get into hand laying track, building locomotives, cars, scenery, and structures. Later, it gets replaced by handlaid.
In reality, the code 70 is oversize for my application, but I use it to emphasize the difference between standard and narrow gauge. Oversize painted and weathered rail and track usually doesn't look oversize in person, but definitely shows in photos from low angles. The low angle photos pick up the rail being too tall for the trains very nicely.
The ties on Atlas code 83 are much more to scale than the Atlas code 100 ties. ME flex track doesn't come bigger than code 83 for HO (code 70 and 55 also available), and is much more realistic than the Atlas code 83.
My values are that track is a model too, and should come close to matching the same fidelity that the rest of the layout does.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Dito, for a new H0 layout I would go with code 70 for main lines, code 55 and even code 40 elsewhere.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
I'm expanding my layout right now. My existing layout is Code 100, but I'm going to do the new section in Code 83. I just think it's nicer looking track. Another thing I noticed is that the Atlas switch machines for Code 83 are a lot smaller and less noticeable than those for Code 100, if you're thinking of using Atlas turnouts.
There is still some issue with deep-flange "pizza cutter" wheels on some old rolling stock. I took the worst ones I had, some old Tyco hoppers, and tested them on Code 83. Mine worked fine.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
My railroad was started in 1983/4 and is completed, and is code 100. I would not redo it as a lot of the track is in hidden areas and would be hard to relay. I do have some code 83 as well as code 70 on the visible portion of the layout, it is fine, but I would not rebuild the layout just to use it. I also have some handlaid on wood ties, as well as scratchbuilt switches in a couple of areas that were used to earn my MMR from the NMRA. They will not change.
I was also smart enough to lay in an extra supply of ME code 100 before it went away, so have plenty on hand. So to sum, not worth tearing up all that work just to have a little bit more scale track. If I were starting a new layout...........
Bob
Since you are starting from scratch on a new layout I would probably go with code 83 or smaller. Depends on your tolerance for track laying as well. Working with the smaller scale rail requires more attention to detail as for as reliably keeping the train on the tracks.
Chris
You probably could make a good argument that code 100 for HO scale has been obsolete since the introduction of the Walthers/Shinohara code 83 line 20 years ago. I know some folks use code 100 because they are re-using track from a previous layout, or have very old engines whose flanges won't work on code 83, but unless one of those situations pertains to you I'd say to go with code 83 or even smaller.
I started with code 83. All the "real" trains worked fine, but my Granddaughter's Thomas the Tank Engine, well actually Annie & Clarabelle, flanges hit the ties so when I expanded I used code 100. I have no regrets. I'm not a rivet counter, so I am not concerned that you can tell it's a model in photographs.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Both in a couple postings and in face to face discussion, I've been told to dump the code 100 I've salvaged from previous layouts and go with code 70 or 83.However, as I approach retirement and get ready to build what might be my final layout, I have decided it's just not financially responsible or doable. I just can't afford to replace a couple dozen lengths of flex track and maybe 30 code 100 switches, especially the crossovers and double slip switches. In fact, I stripped some of the code 100 brass rail from old fiber flex track for some hand laid track and custom turnout construction I'll possibly be doing.
My attitude on this topic mirrors that which I have in a couple other hobbies: Fit what you do into the pattern of what you want to do, ae able to do, and what you can aford to do.
To me, smooth and reliable derailment free trackage is far more immportant than catering to PC in using the smallest available rail size.
Well, I would like to thank everybody for the most excellent comments. I'll plan to go ahead with the Code 83 as I originally thought ( weak minds think alike! ). Fortunately, the money issue isn't a big factor right now and this is the perfect time to make the transition from Code 100. I am delighted how well thought out the comments have been and this makes me more appreciative of the collected experience and talent the Forum members have!
Where oh, where can I get my hands on Code 70 and /or Code 55 Atlas flextrak as well as turnouts, cross-overs, wyes, etc????????????????????????????
Jimmy
ROUTE ROCK!
If code 100 is ballasted properly and the ties are painted brown, I don't think most people could tell the difference between that and code 83.
I use code 100, so far, I haven't even painted the ties, just ballasted some sections for sampling. It looks like railroad track to me. So the rails are ever so slightly more elevated than the prototype? Who cares? At least there is not a third rail running down the middle of the track (Just kidding, I love lionel too!)
Seriously though, my point is, if you put code 100 track up to 3 rail track for O gauge (even the gargraves with the blackened center rail), the HO code 100 would look far more realistic to anybody. I'm not a rivet counter, but I still like my trains and track to look somewhat realistic, no matter what rail height you use, 2 rails looks better than 3.
This is code 100 and when weathered and ballasted, it looks perfect. He did a fantastic job, I found this photo on this forum actually. (photo courtesy of nbrodar):
rjake4454If code 100 is ballasted properly and the ties are painted brown, I don't think most people could tell the difference between that and code 83.
Sure, it does look good, but Code 83 comes like that already. In the 1980s when Code 83 was a new concept and you couldn't even find curved turnouts in 83, it was better to stick with 100, but there's enough kinds of code 83 track products that you don't need code 100 anymore! And if you factor in the additional time and materials (paint, etc) needed to make code 100 more realistic, the price point is about equal as code 83.
Again, if you're already invested time and money in code 100, sure it's good to stay and have that option, but if you're starting anew, there's no real reason NOT to use code 83.
hcc25rl Where oh, where can I get my hands on Code 70 and /or Code 55 Atlas flextrak as well as turnouts, cross-overs, wyes, etc???????????????????????????? Jimmy
I guess since you can't get Atlas (yet), you won't be able to use the smaller, more to scale rail size. Same as not being able to model a particular prototype because no popular Brand X locomotive comes pre-painted and lettered for that particular road.
For those willing to venture a little more out of the mainstream:
code 70: Shinohara makes a complete line of HO, HOn3, and dual gauge flex track, turnouts, and crossings. ME makes flex track and #6 turnouts in HO and HOn3, and dual gauge flex track. BK makes a wide variety of turnout kits, as do Fast Tracks and Proto87 Stores. Central Valley turnout kits and tie strips work well with ME code 70 rail. Railway Engineering, Cream City, Litco, and others make custom turnouts to order, as well as stock to sell - again in HO, HOn3, and dual gauge.
code 55: ME makes flex track in both HO and HOn3. Turnout kits are available from BK (Trout Engineering), Fast Tracks, and Proto87 Stores. Central Valley turnout kits and tie strips will work with ME code 55 rail with a little care. ME used to make code 55 HOn3 #6 turnouts. The same custom turnout makers will also make their wares in code 55 upon your order.
code 40: At one time, Kurtz-Kraft used to make code 40 flex track for HO. I believe this later became part of ME's line. ME presently makes code 40 flex track, but only in narrow gauge (HOn3) last I heard. Could be wrong on this one, HO code 40 flex might be available. BK and Fast Tracks will likely put together code 40 turnout kits if you order. Custom turnout makers' code 40 capability depends upon their methods and materials.
Of course, hand-laid is quite practical in any rail size - but that wasn't your point.
If you already have Code 100, use it where the sun don't shine - unless the rails are brass.
My own standards - not necessarily anyone else's:
Using heavier rail for complex switchwork is prototypical - it reduces maintenance in 1:1 scale. OTOH, code 40 is somewhat small, being equivalent to < 40#/yd. I doubt that any standard gauge track has been laid in that weight in the western hemisphere during the last 150 years.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with rail of appropriate sizes)
fwrightcode 55: ME makes flex track in both HO and HOn3. Turnout kits are available from BK (Trout Engineering), Fast Tracks, and Proto87 Stores. Central Valley turnout kits and tie strips will work with ME code 55 rail with a little care. ME used to make code 55 HOn3 #6 turnouts. The same custom turnout makers will also make their wares in code 55 upon your order. code 40: At one time, Kurtz-Kraft used to make code 40 flex track for HO. I believe this later became part of ME's line. ME presently makes code 40 flex track, but only in narrow gauge (HOn3) last I heard. Could be wrong on this one, HO code 40 flex might be available. BK and Fast Tracks will likely put together code 40 turnout kits if you order. Custom turnout makers' code 40 capability depends upon their methods and materials.
I'm an N-scaler and ME makes flex track in Code 55 and 40. Are the rails the same thing as HO code 55/40?
Metro Red LineI'm an N-scaler and ME makes flex track in Code 55 and 40. Are the rails the same thing as HO code 55/40?
Yes. The rail code represents the height of the rail in thousandths of inches. Code 40 rail is 0.040 inches high.
Prototype rail cross section has pretty much the same shape, regardless of size/weight. Prototype rail is sized in lbs/yard of length. 60lb - 80 lb rail was common in the late 19th Century for main lines. This was superseded by 100lb rail and then 120lb rail as trains got bigger and heavier. Modern main lines carrying substantial traffic use 132lb rail. Almost all branch lines, spurs, and yards use smaller rail than on the main line - and will often use used rail that was originally on main lines.
The November 1962 Model Railroader Clinic column contained an excellent discussion of both prototype and model rail. For N scale, code 40 is the only commercial model rail size that scales to a reasonable size prototype rail - representing about 120lb rail. Code 55 and larger model rail is bigger than any prototype rail in N scale, the same as code 100 is in HO (the rare 152lb PRR prototype rail is the exception). In HO, the same code 40 rail represents 40lb rail, and code 55 represents 75lb rail.
probably more than you wanted to know
I have a question, if you are nailing down Code 83 with spikes, wouldn't the black spikes look a little bit out of place on the brown ties?
rjake4454I have a question, if you are nailing down Code 83 with spikes, wouldn't the black spikes look a little bit out of place on the brown ties?
Best thing is to go look at the prototype. 2nd best is to study photos of the prototype. Study some of Mark Pierce's SP prototype photos he posts in the Model Railroader forums. For those of us modeling earlier eras, photos are the best we have. I've yet to see any real railroads where the ties were a consistent black or brown.
Freshly creosoted wood is a very dark brown, almost black. But that fades to gray as time weathers it. On the underside of wood trestles where the sun, rain, and snow can't get to it, the creosote will stay dark for a long time. I don't know what new wood ties are preserved with nowadays.
Spikes and tie plates and rail sides tend to be a dark rusty color. In the east and wetter western areas, the rust color will be more pronounced. In the dry Southwest, it's more a dark dirt and weathering brown than rust. Most model spikes are quite oversize, which is distracting in an of itself.
Ties, tie plate, and rail size all depend on era as well as use. Late 19th Century didn't use tie plates or creosote, and the ties were shorter and narrower, as well as the rail being smaller.
For me, track is a model, too. Many of you use photos of prototype locomotives to detail, paint, and weather your models. Why not do the same for track? Especially where it's up front and easily seen.
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....