The Death of Code 100 Track

[twhite]

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??

 

Antonio. 

YES, he said with a sigh.  How many times do I have to mention it?  And to answer your question, that medium-heavy Northern looks as if it's on my painted, weathered, ballasted Code 100 track.  Now is everybody happy? 

Tom

[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??

 

[simon1966]

Good one Mark!

[marknewton]

My view simply was that since code 83 rail is available, why are some modelers reluctant to use it.  A couple of the responses surprised me, because they seemed borderline "NO WAY, JOSE!" in an almost defensive tone.  Sort of like the DCC vs. DC type threads.

Well, I'm only reluctant to use Code 83 because it looks too big and chunky for what I'm doing! ;-) Peco Code 75 track and turnouts are ideal for my purposes. But if I were to go back to modelling US prototype, I'd wouldn't hesitate to use their Code 83 track.

Mark.

[Darth Santa Fe]

WHO buys it?

WHO will continue to buy it when prices and manufacturing cost's equalize?

Well, there's me. I like my AHM/Rivarossis too much to get code 83.

[twhite]

twhite,
What sort of "base" is out there for Code 100?  Are there that many pizza cutters running around?  As for your example, locos look bigger on smaller rail (IOW, better).  Large locos on small rail was the rule.  Arguing for Code 100 because of it's heft is like arguing for molded on grab irons or horn-hook couplers because of their toughness.  Sure, they (and Code 100) are hefty, but so is Lionel.

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

Sorry, Paul, but the base is out there for anyone who gets started in the hobby these days.  As to locomotives looking 'bigger' on smaller track, as I've stated REPEATEDLY in this thread, Code 100 can be made to look much smaller with painting, weathering and ballasting.  It has to do with what the 'eye' perceives during normal operation, not what the F-8 stop on your camera captures for one still photo. 

Understand, I'm not condemning smaller codes for track--that was never my intention.  What I'm saying is that Code 100 can be made to look as good as any of the smaller 'to scale' rail.  And I still hold that a 2-8-8-4 on code 83 or 70 looks just too darned HEAVY.  My opinion, and you can argue it until the Apocolypse, but it's still my opinion and I hold to it. 

Tom

[AntonioFP45]

Hello TWhite,

No, you're not being argumentive.  I had the same exact question when Walthers introduced Code 83 years back (80s? 90s?).

Being skeptical and curious, I did comparisons between prototype photos and samples of Code 100 and Code 83 that I had.  Plus, I lived near the SCL (now CSX) line.  I looked at the height of the rails and the tie sizes.  I finally had to admit that the 83 did more closely match the appearance of prototype mainline rail in the U.S (and I'm assuming Canada as well). 

But it's not a big deal.  As mentioned, a good ballasting job and weathering does a nice job of beautifying code 100 rail. 

My view simply was that since code 83 rail is available, why are some modelers reluctant to use it.  A couple of the responses surprised me, because they seemed borderline "NO WAY, JOSE!" in an almost defensive tone.  Sort of like the DCC vs. DC type threads.

It's not a big deal.  Respectfully, to each his own.  Of course if one has a layout already built with code 100, or has rolling stock with large flanges; that's understandable.  However, if one is starting out, he/she has a choice between the two.   

[marknewton]

cbq9911a, What equipment is out there that has deep flanges anymore? Even Rivarossi changed to RP25 flanges, and that was years ago. AFAIK, only Euro modelers use those NEM flanges.

And modellers in the UK, and Australia. There is a lot of stuff around with deep flanges outside the US.

twhite,
What sort of "base" is out there for Code 100?  Are there that many pizza cutters running around?

In the UK, Europe and Australia there is an extensive base market for code 100 track - "pizza cutters" are still the norm in most places that I know of.

Mark.

[Beowulf]

I use lots of code 70 and code 83 including complex hand built switches.  But I use code 100 in my helix and staging yard.  I figure that if I lean against the rails during awkward maintainence there is less chance they will deform.  I'll use code 100 on my grandson's first layout for the same reason.

[marknewton]

...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.

Peco won't stop making Code 100 any time soon. There will always be a demand for it in the UK, Europe and Australia, which is where the bulk of their market is. You'll notice that they didn't stop making it after they introduced their Code 75 track, which has been around for many years prior to their introducing their Code 83 range.



Mark.

[my05hammer]

Last Christmas my son and I started a layout that will be taking up our whole basement.  We slowly bought our locomotives and rolling stock first.  But as usual like everything else I do, I jumped back into the hobby after a 20 gap and didn't do any research. 

Back in the 80's when I was in High School, C100NS was twice the cost of C100Brass, and I thought I was Joe Cool for having C100NS on my little 4 foot by 6.5 foot layout. 

Fast foreward to last fall.  The train bug bit again, and it bit hard.  So far I have spent around $3800.00 on locomotives alone but when it came to track... I bought what I thought was top shelf... I bought 3 boxes of Atlas C100NS Flex Track, only to find out later that C83NS is the around same money.  Had I known this ahead of time I would have gone with C83NS. 

So, I got it and I am going to run it. 

Hmmm.  There is always Evil-Bay.

 

[Paul3]

wcu boy,
While I do think that Code 100 track will go the way of brass track eventually, I don't think it has anything to do with paying off the tooling for Code 83 items.  It does, however, have everything to do with the economics of the consumers.  If we stop buying it, they'll stop making it (the reverse also being true).

BTW, even if you buy Code 100 items, none of it will be "wasted" if they stop making it tomorrow.  There's a lot of existing layouts that have a mix of various codes of rail.

cbq9911a,
What equipment is out there that has deep flanges anymore?  Even Rivarossi changed to RP25 flanges, and that was years ago.  AFAIK, only Euro modelers use those NEM flanges.

Packer,
Trust me, Code 100 doesn't last any longer than Code 83.  Or rather, by the time it matters, we'll be shuffled off this mortal coil.  For example, my club had Code 100 track handlaid in 1953, and it was used almost daily until 1998.  After 45 years of use, the Code 100 track was still .100" tall.

locoi1sa,
I haven't seen a deep flange loco at my 60 member club in years.  I haven't seen them at any another club around these parts, either.  About the only place I've seen them is at train shows in the bargain bins for cheap money.

twhite,
What sort of "base" is out there for Code 100?  Are there that many pizza cutters running around?  As for your example, locos look bigger on smaller rail (IOW, better).  Large locos on small rail was the rule.  Arguing for Code 100 because of it's heft is like arguing for molded on grab irons or horn-hook couplers because of their toughness.  Sure, they (and Code 100) are hefty, but so is Lionel.

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

[twhite]

Antonio: 

Not to be argumentative, but DOES it?  Really?  And as I've said repeatedly on this thread, it can be made to look VERY realistic with paint, weathering and ballast. 

Tom

[KemacPrr]

I wouldn't worry about code 100 going away. Atlas just introduced #8 code 100 turnouts and I'm sure they want to pay off the tooling on this new product. I have both code 100 and code 83 on my rr and when weathered you really can't tell the difference betweeen the two.

 --------------- Ken McCorry

[AntonioFP45]

Just curious...............

Those of you stating that you're sticking with Code 100............. why?   Code 83 does much more closely resemble the track that we see on a typical North American Class 1 railroad from the early 1900s era thru today (except for the Pennsy, of course)

[simon1966]

I'll keep buying code 100 track as my layout is such and I want to keep running my older stuff.  Many of the modular layouts I see at shows are 100, plus the large display layout in my area.  Actually, most of the modellers I know in this area use 100 exclusively.  So there are plenty of buyers around here.

[Mark R.]

I'll echo everyone elses responses as well. My entire 13 X 25 foot layout is code 100, and when I finally get around to working on a planned expansion, it too will be code 100.

Mark.

[AntonioFP45]

IMHO, Code 100 will be around for at least a while.  There have been  many HO cars and locomotives produced over the past several decades (Bachmann, AHM, Rivorossi come to mind) that have "Pizza Cutter" wheel flanges that might be in trouble on Code 83. 

BTW: Don't forget the hobbyists that model the Pennsylvania Railroad up until the PC merger. Pennsy used 155 lb rail in heavy traffic areas.  Code 100 rail is closer in size than 83.

Personally I'm sticking with Code 83 track. 

 

[don7]

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.

Merely one person's opinion.

Imagine how many layouts are out there that have been built with code 100 track.  I had intended to increase my layout this winter. Hopefully there will still be code 100 track available.

[selector]

For at least the next two decades, and perhaps as much as the next four, there will be a hefty market for Code 100 rail.  Once natural evolution creeps in, with a number of changes coming together to cause a shift in the way we do things (think style and popularity), I figure the pressure to have things look more prototypical will win out in the end.   Sort of like gravity's influence all through the Universe.  It's about the weakest force, but it has an impact over really loooooooooooooooooooong distances.  I can see Code 83 being the kingpin in 20 years.

[jeffrey-wimberly]

I use code 100 because I find it easy to work with and because I don't like code 83. As far as code 100 going out the door because there's a lot of code 83 out there, don't sell the farm yet. Like taxes and backaches it'll be around for many years to come.

[twhite]

And as long as it's affordable and a very strong performer, that holds up for people without the experiance to critique wheels to stay on Code 83 as well as they would on Code 100, it;ll be here. I plan to use it. And SP used hevaier duty rail for sidings than others did for mainlines. SO Tom's humorous comment on Elephants and 2x4s is accurate

Flash: 

Ah, thank you, sir.  I spent my youth on Donner Pass, and the rail there was HUGE!  You're right, SP used hefty rail on their mains--at least on Donner Pass and their Valley runs, it just stood UP on the ties, and you could see it from the highway.  For comparison, all you had to do was travel about 50 miles north of Donner Pass and look at what WP was using in the Feather River Canyon.  And as much as I love WP, their rail by comparison looked like a branch line. 

As I said, with painting, weathering and ballasting, Code 100 can be made to look something less than overpowering.   

Tom

[Flashwave]

And as long as it's affordable and a very strong performer, that holds up for people without the experiance to critique wheels to stay on Code 83 as well as they would on Code 100, it;ll be here. I plan to use it. And SP used hevaier duty rail for sidings than others did for mainlines. SO Tom's humorous comment on Elephants and 2x4s is accurate

[Last Chance]

To be blunt, 100 code has been around all my life and will continue to be around long into the future. As long as SOMEBODY makes HO scale DEEP pizza cutter flanges, there will be a need for 100 track.

I use Kato code 83 and replace deep flanges if necessary; Ive not had to do that yet because I stay with those locos and stock without the deep flanges.

[twhite]

Though granted that code 83 is much more realistic looking (at least to the camera), I don't forsee the 'death' of Code 100 for some time.  There's too big a base out there for it.  As far as brass track--it died because it was constantly oxidizing and interfering with good running, as HO scale became more advanced in operation capabilities. 

Code 100 may not be 'prototypical' because of its height, however those of us who use Code 100 have managed to 'camoflauge' that discrepancy with painting, weathering and ballasting.  I use Code 100 on my mainline (Code 83 on secondary track and yards) not because I have 'pizza-cutter' wheels on any of my equipment--it's all to RP25 standards--but simply because I'm more comfortable with it's 'heft' and frankly, it looks better under my big articulated steamers.  Frankly, to me, a big 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone on Code 83 or 70, looks like an elephant treading two parallel strips of thread. 

And if Atlas just came out with Code 100 #8 turnouts, it doesn't sound to me as if they're considering relegating that size track to the Dinosaurs--at least not yet. 

Tom

[Don Gibson]

Suggestions are that Code 100 will be with us - as long as there is a market for it. I agree.

WHO buys it?

WHO will continue to buy it when prices and manufacturing cost's equalize?

Time will tell.

[locoi1sa]

  My HO modular club has a standard of code 100 for all track so the pizza wheels will still run. Its amasing how many deep flanges that are still going around!!!

[vsmith]

Nope. It's not going anywhere. Brass track died because it was brass.

Exactly, anyone miss cleaning brass track? i didnt think so

[loathar]

Nope. It's not going anywhere. Brass track died because it was brass.

[gandydancer19]

Peco is invested in code 100 track for the European markets as well as the US market. I don't think it will go away any time soon. If it does, It may be 15 or 20 years from now.