The Death of Code 100 Track

[dinwitty]

A club I know of just started building a BIG layout and is using code 100. The man told me the savings for the humongus layout was substancial.They considered Fastrack turnouts but rejected them because they thought it would take too long to build em.

Google Worcester Model Railroad Club and check out the size and complexity of this layout, it's BIG.

At some point when I get my home layout done and I'm still kicking I may join, they are a great bunch of guy's.

 

Jules

 

 

I can build a standard switch in one hour, not even using fast tracks, just basic tools.

 

[mononguy63]

When I was preparing to lay track on my new layout a couple of years ago, I actually went to the LHS and stood in the aisle holding a section of C83 in one hand and C100 in the other to see which way to go first hand. Compared side-by-side, there really is no comparison - the C83 has a lower profile and the ties are brown, smaller, and more closely spaced. It's just more realistic in every aspect. After seeing that code 83 track looked better, I promptly put it back on the shelf and bought more code 100. Why? Firstly, I already had a lot of salvaged C100 track and was on too tight a budget to replace it all. Secondly, code 83 costs more than code 100. Sure, the difference is relatively small, but multiply that small difference by all the pieces that needed to be purchased and it adds up. Thirdly, code 100 looks good enough for my purposes on its own merit - having some of both on my layout could lead to the "Hey that track looks nice - ewww, that track doesn't!" phenomenon. It compares favorably when there's nothing to compare it to.

[Don Gibson]

In the  words of Mark (Code 100) Twain:

"The roports of my death have been  greatly exaggerated".  It will remain as long as there is a market for it. Guess who buys the most most of it? - and why?

1. Old timers bought it when then was the ONLY choice available. 2. metal track doesn't seem to wear out . 3. European 00 pre-dated HO when 3 rail O-27 dominated the American market.

 4.Newbies buy it becuse it's cheaper - no matter how you spell the word.

Whatever type of track you lay down will oultast YOU, so .. ?I use it if because I already have it  &  I'm too cheap to throw it away - but not for  new yards, spurs, & sidings.

Whatever track you lay down will outlast us all, and I hate the looks of those black  frogs,  so ... ?

[onebiglizard]

jrbernier noted that Atlas released their code 100 #8  turnouts.  Wish I could buy some.  Walthers is constantly backordered, and my LHS hasn't any either. 

[One Track Mind]

Code 100 outsells Code 83 in my shop. Not quite two-to-one, but more.

#1 reason given: cost

I also sold 2 packages of horn-hook couplers today. The death notice for them was given some time ago.

[mechanic]

I'm not sure that "the death" of code 100 track is what is in question.

I think a more reasonable question is "when will code 83 track become the standard instead of code 100 track?"

The last couple of times I was at my LHS there were a few people in buying track for layouts they were building.

When the store owner asked them "what code of track would you like?"

they all responded with "whatever everyone else uses" (or something along those lines.

They all walked out with code 100.

Untill code 83 is accepted hobby wide as the "standard" to use people will continue using code 100 simply because its considered the standard at this point in time.

Just my 2cents

Eric

[tsgtbob]

Wow.

Code 100, which to me is small stuff, should be around for decades more. Why?

It has been in every starter set since the Beginning of Time! In all honesty, C-83 and C-70 are what should be called advanced items. 

Now, as for the "small stuff" comment, as an O scaler, we are sorta stuck with code 148 as a default rail size. Code 100 (which was made in a sectional form by Rivarossi and Pola) is very small rail size, by comparsion. 

[simon1966]

Turn them both over and check the underside.  I suspect the humonguspikes are Made in USA and the fine spikes (new production) come from China...

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with hidden ancient Atlas code 100...)

Just checked and the fine spike version for sure says China on the bottom.  I only have one section with the big spike detail but is it glued down and ballasted so I am not about to check!

[tomikawaTT]

As someone who has purchased quite a bit of Atlas Code 100 flex track (I use Peco turnouts not Atlas) I have noticed that the spike detail is much finer now than it was.  Not sure if they changed the tooling, or if there is more than one tool they use, but I am always careful when purchasing this to make sure I get the track with the fine detail rather than the over size.  I have found both types in the same hobby shop.

Turn them both over and check the underside.  I suspect the humonguspikes are Made in USA and the fine spikes (new production) come from China...

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with hidden ancient Atlas code 100...)

[chatanuga]

On my last layout when I relaid the track, I stayed with code 100.  At the time, I think there might have been a price difference (back around 2000), and code 100 was what I was familiar with, even though I'd seen the code 83 products at the time.

After that layout, I saw a friend's layout with code 83 track, and it looked so much better in terms of not just the rail size but the size and spacing of the ties.  So when I built my current layout, which is built to higher standards than the last one, I went with code 83.

Kevin

[simon1966]

As someone who has purchased quite a bit of Atlas Code 100 flex track (I use Peco turnouts not Atlas) I have noticed that the spike detail is much finer now than it was.  Not sure if they changed the tooling, or if there is more than one tool they use, but I am always careful when purchasing this to make sure I get the track with the fine detail rather than the over size.  I have found both types in the same hobby shop.

[pastorbob]

I have been model railroading in HO since 1958.  My current layout was started in 1988, and was built with code 100.  A few newer areas have some code 83 and code 70, but the bulk of the track, on all three decks is code 100.  I have no deep flanges, and at age 72, I have no desire to rip up a perfectly good, operating layout to start another so the "scale rail freaks" can be a little bit happier today.

This is the last layout I will build, so they can bury me in a code 100 lined casket, and I will be happy.  But the really good news is none of the rail freaks ever have to come into my basement.  In fact, when I am on tour again, I will post a large sign on the layout room door that says "Beware, code 100 rail ahead, enter at your own risk."  

Bob 

 

[ndbprr]

I model the PRR corridor and code 100 is the right size for the 153# rail. Lucky me !

[RicHamilton]

To me it is not the millimeters of height difference, but the differences in the appearance of the 'spike heads'.  Can't stand the Atlas C100 ones.  That gives it away as a model right away.  I really wish ME would make some C55 turnouts in HO

[TomDiehl]

Code 100 will be around for many years to come. Why? As several have said above, it's more rugged than code 83, not just because of the rail size, but the oversized "spike heads" that hold the rail and ties together. I believe this is also the reason that the size is most used in train set snap track loops. Most people that buy train sets are beginners to the model railroad hobby and avoiding the more delicate track rail size and more scale sized "spike heads" until the user gets used to handling it will cut down the frustration level for the first timers. And few first timers are going to notice a difference of .017 inch.

Also, many of the serious hobbyists use it in hidden yards, and on portable layouts for the same reason.

[BRAKIE]

I recall way back in the late 60s/early 70s "code 70 would replace code100 by the 80s' cried the hobby "experts" and even MR and RMC got on the C70 band wagon by predicting C70 will become the "standard track by choice"...Here it is 2008 and C100 is still going strong while C70 has lost its once high market share and popularity to C83..

The average modelers sets the market trend..

[JulesB]

A club I know of just started building a BIG layout and is using code 100. The man told me the savings for the humongus layout was substancial.They considered Fastrack turnouts but rejected them because they thought it would take too long to build em.

Google Worcester Model Railroad Club and check out the size and complexity of this layout, it's BIG.

At some point when I get my home layout done and I'm still kicking I may join, they are a great bunch of guy's.

 

Jules

 

[AntonioFP45]

TWhite,

The steamers you mentioned "look to heavy on code 83"??????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqHtCYS0kU0   Doesn't seem to be a problem for 844. Look Careully at the video from time index 3:14 thru 6:00.  Does that rail resemble Code 100 more closely or Code 83??

 

TWhite,

When I was typing the above answer, I didn't realize that you had posted a reply to Paul that clearly explained your point.  I understand now. 

[tomikawaTT]

Man, that's a lot of chowder from one clam!

ONE person quoted ONE 'expert' who expounded an opinion, unsupported by anything resembling hard data - and the rest of us contributed a hatful of posts containing a hatful of opinions, none of them supported by hard data.

I personally put this one in the same receptacle with Al Gore on global warming and a certain presidential candidate who's going to (personally) create 5,000,000 new jobs while converting the entire country to alternative energy sources in ten years (which is two years longer than the Constitution will allow him to serve.)

Which receptacle?  The one on the floor next to my desk.  It's rectangular, but works like round...

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with rail ranging from Code 40 to Code 100)

[aloco]

Code 100 rail will only disappear when the hobby is dominated by nit-pickers who have to have everything to scale on their layouts.   Scale-size rail, scale-size couplers, scale -size flanges, scale-size detail parts... there can be no end to it.  I'm happy with what I've got, including my code 100 rail and my Athearn blue box GP7s that don't have scale width hoods.

[LD357]

 The same people who predict the ''death of code 100 track'' are usually the same ones who predict the death of DC and ''out of scale handrails'' and etc. and etc. ad nauseum....won't happen.  Too many modellers use code 100 track, more modellers than use the other codes. So don't worry about a sudden shortage in code 100 track supplies, it's going to be with us for many more years.

[twhite]

Looking back on this whole thread, I think it's absolutely amazing that a bunch of supposedly grown men--including myself--are wrangling full-bore over some millimetres of track height.  Live and let live, guys.  There are more important things in the hobby.

Tom

[mlehman]

Code 100 dead?

Not a problem for me. I wouldn't touch the stuff. Nothing with deep flanges here. Code 83 is kind of on the heavy side for what I do, but works well. I have a lot of dual gauge track, which is all code 70 Shinohara turnouts. Thus my code 83 track represents the bulkier standard gauge track in comparison to the code 70. 

I'm not being elitist about track. The folks who do that are the ones where code 55 is mainline, with code 40 on the sidings...nah, just kidding!

Whatever floats you boat. Track size is easy to disguise with weathered work techniques. While I'm sure that some people will still go with code 100 for legacy reasons, those eventually melt away for those starting on layouts now. In 20 years, code 100 will be dead as the dodo, with a very few folks living off that stash of code 100 they squirelled away now -- or in a few years to come.

[Geared Steam]

I'm always baffled by the claim that code 83 is "difficult" to work with, or does not hold up as well. If a ham fisted klutz like me can lay it and it's dependable, anyone should be able to.

I have , and it is, it is was no more or less difficult than code 100.

GS

[dinwitty]

While posting another question on this bulletin board concerning Atlas Code 100 track, Mr. Gibson stated this opinion

My guess is once code 83 tooling costs have been paid off, code 100 will be discontinued - much like brass track. (When the price discrepancy disappeared no one wanted it).

 I was very intrigued with this statement. Mr. Gibson is very knowledgable person and has been very helpful to me in answering my questions. I took his thougts very seriously. Do the rest of us think that Code 100 track is going out like brass track once the tooling with Atlas and Peco is paid for with their Code 83 track. I would want to know before I purchase any new track and waste my hard earned money on Code 100 track items. What do you all think? Please respond with your honest thoughts.

No, code 100 track won't go away, because there's too much of a base out there.  Anyone who has equipment with deep flanges will need to keep code 100. 

do the Europeans still use the deep flange as a standard? No, it prolly will not go away. For the more toyish models, it stays. 

I think the hobby demand for more realistic track has made the turn for code 83. Deep flanges will run on it, which is why I LOOOOONG time ago went for code 83 and the more realistic rail height.

The club I was in went to code 83 because they knew the same thing, highest compatibility but more realistic track.

I will be more than happy to see brass rail dissappear with code 100, and if this can drop the track/rail prices, cool.

We know about the toy train sets you put up run and put away, break it, easy replace, but those days are done, if you want to promote quality hobby, stop the toyishness.

 

[BRAKIE]

C100 will be around for the next few years..

I suppose the real question should be when will the average modeler accept semi scale .088" flange and scale coupler boxes as a new "standard"?

When and if that should happen C100 will pass into the sunset,C83 will be consider "heavy" rail while C40/C55 will become the accepted "standard".

 I don't see that happening in the near future..

[kbaker329]

I use Code 100 BRASS Atlas track because: it's paid for and has been installed for around 25 years, my old Rivarossi engines and 60's brass has no problems with it and it's painted, weathered, ballasted and looks good.  I guess I run often enough that oxidation isn't a problem so I'm not fixing something that isn't broke.  If I were to start over, I'd probably use Code 100 again, only with NS since that's all that is available.  I just don't see it being that big a deal and don't see Atlas getting rid of something they've made zillions on!

Keith Baker

[Paul3]

Mark,
BTW, why does the UK, Europe and Australia use giant flanges?  I know it's an NEM standard, but isn't it time for them to put out a finer/realistic wheel profile standard?  It's one thing that really bugs me about Marklin, et al.  They make great looking models, then put ridiculous wheels on them.  Sigh.  I suppose they operate more dependibly over rougher track, but couldn't one just lay the track better? 

Antonio,
Yeah, I also noticed that defensive tone among the replies (and when this topic has come up before).  Code 100 is historically not realistic in size except in very rare circumstances (and Atlas Code 100 is not realistic in any circumstance).  But if you say that, watch out...

twhite,
What does getting started in the hobby have to do with code choice?  Unless you mean the click together beginner's track.

As for your assertion that Code 100 can be made to look as good as any of the smaller 'to scale' rail, I strongly disagree.  The methods used to "reduce" the size of Code 100 can also be used Code 83 or Code 70, too.  Which means they look smaller yet and even more to scale.

Personally, I can't understand how you've come to the conclusion that a 2-8-8-4 can look too heavy.  Seriously, it's a 2-8-8-4, for pete's sake.  It's supposed to be heavy looking.  That's not just big steam, it's huge steam.  It's a ponderous mass of metal, water and coal that should make the track groan under the weight.  I have a NH WWII film that shows a 4-8-2 moving to couple up to a train at South Boston Freight Terminal.  The rail is creaking and groaning, with occasional little pops of pinging steel as it creeps along.  That's steam railroading (and it's only a Mountain!).  It should not look like a tinplate/hi-rail model that's rolling on some I-beams.

Paul A. Cutler III
************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
************

[ChessieMTNSUB]

I prefer code 100 for hidden track and staging, more bullet proof.