Code 83 vs. Code 100

[Anonymous]

This has probably been covered a dozen times but I did a search and couldn't find much... so heres the question again....

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the 2? I know that code 83 is more correct to scale than code 100. What are the other factors to weigh?

[Jetrock]

That's pretty much it--Code 83 is about the size of very heavyweight modern American rail, and Code 100 is slightly larger than the heaviest rail ever found on American railroads. The ties of Code 83 track are generally smaller, and thus are a little better for representing older or lighter-weight track.

In terms of operation, there isn't too much difference: the .017" height difference *might* mean that if you run a lot of really old rolling stock with the original wheelsets, or a lot of European stuff, again with the original wheelsets, tbose cars might occasionally bump against the "spikes" or the ties. Other than that, there is really no difference.

In either case, painting the sides of your rails will help to "shrink" their apparent size more than any other factor.

[Anonymous]

I've chosen code 83 for my most recent pair of HO scale modules (my third pair), because I often take photos at track level and it looks much better. My first modules made about 20 years ago were done with code 100 with great big bumps that were supposed to be spikes - they looked more like a loaf of bread! The newer stuff is a lot better, and the smaller track looks even better. Place a piece of each beside each other and you will see the differences. And of course code 83 costs more than code 100.

Bob Boudreau

[Anonymous]

When I built my last layout about 8 years ago, Code 83 Nickle Silver was new to me. I liked the looks of it, and I was having so many problems with the Steel Bachmann track I had used for the years before.

I took a break from the Hobby and left my layout uncovered and in the basement. This past year I decided that I would start working with the Best Hobby I've ever known. The only thing I had to do was vacuum the layout top off, get rid of some of the stuff that was piled up on the layout, and hand cleaned the track with a few cotton cloths and some alcohol. Darn track ran like I had jusy laid it the night before.

Of course I am now in the midst of a rebuild. I love these Customline Switches in #6 and #8's!

Good Luck in your choice!

Chris

[Anonymous]

So the code 83 does cost quit a bit more than the code 100?

[jfugate]

It's like the leaded to unleaded gas changeover (if you are old enough to remember that) ... unleaded cost more, although adding the lead was an extra process. Once leaded went away, the price of unleaded did not drop. Gotcha!

Same thing with code 83 versus code 100. Code 83 came on the market originally as the premium track choice, and now code 83 track is pervasive, with code 100 diminishing somewhat.

But do you think the code 83 track is getting any cheaper? Nope. If anything the price of the "more rare" code 100 track is going up.

I prefer code 83 MicroEngineering track for it's tiny spike heads and great look ... but the stuff's not cheap. I use the cheap stuff for staging tracks and in places where the track will be hidden.

Properly weathered and ballasted code 100 track doesn't look all that bad to the the eye when you are just standing there running trains. But if you get down low to take realistic photos of your trains, the difference is apparent right away. Since I'm big into photographing the layout, I want the rail to look right so I pay the extra expense for the fancier track.

[twhite]

I've gone with both--code 100 for my mainline and 83 for my yards. They seem to co-exist pretty well together, and as has been said on other posts, properly weathered and ballasted, code 100 tends to 'shrink' a little. Call me old-fashioned, but I just am more comfortable with the 'heft' of code 100, though I don't mind admitting that if I were JUST beginning my layout today, I'd probably be swayed to code 83, after seeing how great it looks on Joe Fugate's Siskiyou Line. But that would mean using code 70 in the yards, which could make for a bumpy ride everytime I want to run one of my Austrian NEM Crocodiles, LOL!
Tom [}:)][}:)]

[ndbprr]

However, if you are modeling the corridor and the PRR Code 100 is the right size. Problem solved!!!

[Anonymous]

I am old enough to remember when BRASS TRACK was the standard. Code 100 is great, you could use it on deeper flange engines and simply pile ballast a bit higher.

Now Nickel Silver is king and code 83 turned out rather well for me. I dont think I would want to get any lighter than code 83.

[Anonymous]

About a month or so ago there was an identical thread. some of the folks that have been modeling for some time belived that code 100 was the way to go and listed a number of reasons Some of the folks that use code 83 also listed reasons for there prefrence.

I have used both so I decided that I would try to make a couple of identical test strips and kind of see for my self what the diffrences were.

I took 2 identicle 18" strips glued the same road bed on each. I then fastened an 18" piece of code 83 on one and an 18" piece of code 100 on the other. I then painted both the rails of each test piece with the same color. I let them dry overnight.

The next morning I went to the shop and picked up the strip that appered wider thinking that I had picked up the code 100. It was the code 83 strip. I belive that the optical illusion created a sense that the track was wider because of the size of the ty's.

I went ahead and ballasted both test strips with the same color and size of ballast.

My conclusion;
Side by side a knowledgeable modeler would not have a lot of problems choosing one from the other.

When I seperated the strips. Placing them about ten feet apart there was much less diffrence. ( Legal disclaimer: I am not a photographer)

I had my married son select the test strip that he thought was best. He selected the code 100. Unfortunatly He has a slight problem. He isn't a RR modler. However I kinda like him so I am reporting his observation.

My own decision. I decieded that there was not enough diffrence in the two finished test pieces to warrent the higher prices for the track and the turnouts. ( the current value of the dollar compared to the EU Makes a very significant cost diffrence between code 100 Peco code 83 turnouts as opposed to Peco code 100 turnouts.

This was my own test. None of this is set in concrete. I made my choices based on my observations and my values. It's your railroad build it the way you want. Just have fun.

Joe

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Duck

So the code 83 does cost quit a bit more than the code 100?

Only if it's Peco! [:0]

[BRAKIE]

I am currently using C83 but,if I had to buy my track over I would go with the C100..You see when you paint the rail and ballast the track its hard to tell the differance under normal operation viewing since we pay more attention to our trains,waybills(if you use 'em) and car numbers then the track..[:D]

[Don Gibson]

CODE 83 looks better.
CODE 100 has been around 50 years. It's cheaper to make.

MOST popular ERA to model - 1940's - 1960's when most Class 1 mainline's were closer to CODE 70.

[grayfox1119]

When I stopped by my LHS last week, I asked him how the code 100 was doing vs code 83. His answer was, Code 83 is selling 5:1 over code 100. He plans to keep both because of the already installed base of code 100 inhis selling area. But he is buying much more code 83.

[Anonymous]

I recently switched to Code 83 from Code 100 especially on the turnouts. The Code 83 turnouts don't have the pothole effect with my cars. I was using the Shinohara Code 100 but have been pleased with the Atlas Code 83 #6 turnouts.

[Anonymous]

I am currently running Atlas code 100 and will be switching to Kato Unitrack code 83 when I do my rebuild.

I agree, code 100 is too high when doing close up photo work. Code 83 is more realistic.

The reason I am going to use Kato Unitrack is to make up for my mediocre track laying skills and concentrate more on scenery and details. The Kato ballasted track looks fantastic with some slight weathering and I feel it will be much better looking when I get done.

[Anonymous]

I use code 100, mainly as I like to be able to use my layout to test models that I'm repairing. Code 83 would rule out a lot of older European models from running, and the code 100 doesn't look too bad to my eyes. I've ballasted it and the rail sides have acquired their own patina from the glue used to fix the ballast, dust, cleaning the rails with a Peco block, etc, so they're not too obvious. I've not bothered painting them as to my mind there's not much point - they're nicely dulled as they are. I laid my track before Peco introduced their Code 83, so I was stuck with either 100 or 75, and chose 100 as it was slightly cheaper. I would consider building future modules with 83 were it not for the fact that it won't match my existing track (in appearence at least) and will make the layout look "bitty". If I ever get to build a permanent "empire" like those featured in MR I might well go for 100 for mainlines and 83 for sidings, as Tom did - this would allow anything to run on the main (I also have NEM locos and cars to cope with!) and have lighter-looking sidings.