Advantages of code 100 code over 83?

[Texas Zepher]

While I am planning on using code 83 on my next "real" layout. I have noticed durability issues when used in more stressful situations.

I made a bunch of small layouts for my wife to sell at craft shows. The one with code 83 needed repair before we got it to the first show. I had to repair it before almost every show until it was sold. The slightest bump on the rail head would rip the rails right off the ties. We ended up selling it as "used" because it had had so many repairs.

Same with modular units I take to shows. After five shows and three major repairs for track damage, I switched to code 100.

I have also found it to be cheaper. As more and more people ru***o code 83 stuff, code 100 gets cheaper and cheaper at swap meets.

By all means I would recommend it for any hidden place where it is easy to transition to. Our club used code 100 and Atlas #6 turnouts in our hidden yard. That has been the most trouble free section of the layout.

P.S. Unless you have a lot of old (especially Rivarossi / AHM) equipment the flange depth issue shouldn't be that big of an issue.

[Anonymous]

I've built layouts with cd 100 and 83. The curent one is cd 83. I like the turnout selection and as far as the flimsey factor - I don't know how someone is treating the track but, I've only had one switch come apart and Walthers replaced it in a heartbeat.

The heighth differance between the Atlas track and Walthers turnouts is way overplayed. My layout has probably 50 turnouts and only one of them is shimmed and that's because its at the transition from high road to the slope down. I also use cd 100 in the staging yard simply because I had it and needed to put it someplace. The wheels click when going over the cd 83/100 joint but they are soldered and have given me no trouble what so ever. If the click bothers you file the rail head a little. I can't hear the click over the sound of the locos.

Bob

[Don Gibson]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cmrproducts

If code 83 is so good WHY doesn't everyone use it in their staging tracks and hidden areas???

BOB H Clarion, PA

We live in a cost concious world.
IT'S CHEAPER

[dinwitty]

Code 83 was meant to be deep flange friendly. Its why I used it (handlaying track)
but code 70 is too small.

and the smaller rail is more realistic.
If you have trouble with code 83, you better check your tracklaying.
Get out your NMRA gauge and start checking.

Some kinds of flex track arent made right (those that the connections zig-zag on the ties forcing the rails to narrow in curving.
The right flex track has one side of the ties connected while the other side is free to flex.

I went code 83 because it look is better.
Advantage of code 100 maybe cost.

[Anonymous]

I've been using Peco code 100, haven't had any derailment problems. I do find it handy as my layout doubles as a test track for older models I've bought, so if the flanges are a little oversized it won't cause trouble. I find that after ballasting it looks fine - the rail sides seem to pick up a patina that hides them nicely, even when you clean the rail tops with a Peco track cleaning block. Hope this is of some use!

[Leon Silverman]

Ken:
I have replaced the ties under code 100 track after soldering the joints together. I simply had to shave down the sections that wind up under the rail joiner with a dremel cutting disk to avoid creating a bump rising at the joint. I sujspect this technic would work with any code size rail, though.

[mikebonellisr]

I use all atlas code 100 flex w shinohara cd.100 turnouts.
,mainly because of thier heft,also thats what I started with and had a little trouble getting a really smooth transition between different codes and even different brands of the same code.Once it's ballasted and weathered it,s hard to tell the difference between 100 and 83.
,

,

[AntonioFP45]

Hello WP8thSub

Appreciate you thoughts!

Cost is not a major factor for me. My attitude is that I don't mind paying a little more to do it right the first time.

At my age now my concern is to minimize maintenance.[;)] If Code 83 is "more fragile" as some modelers have indicated and requires more maintenance, then I would go with the 100. If maintenance is basically the same as 100, then 83 is the route I'll take for my mainlines. I like the realistic appearance of Code 83. I will check out Shinohara and see if they still have Code 100 available.

Just checking out choices.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

One thing I like about the Code 83 flex track is that I can reposition the ties to accommodate rail joiners; plus, if I discover that there's too much 'open' track behind the joiner, I can simply slide a tie back on. I never could do these things with the Code 100 flex track.

[wp8thsub]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

Basically when the time comes, my choices will be to:

(1) Use Code 100 for the mainline and 83 for branch and sidings
(2) Use Code 83 for the mainline and 70 for sidings.

I'd suggest 83 for the mains and 70 for the sidings. My biggest problem with HO code 100 isn't the rail itself, it's that most of what's available has rail of an unrealistic I-beam cross section and poor tie/spike detail. If I see clunky, oversized spikes and excessively uniform ties I can tell I'm seeing code 100 track without looking at the rail. Shinohara (I think) used to make some code 100 flextrack and turnouts with nice tie detail and their rail had a decent cross section; the size of the rail wasn't nearly the issue it is with the toylike Atlas 100.

Unless your primary concern is with cost, I can't see a good reason to go with code 100 for visible track unless you get a good deal on some of the Shinohara stuff.

[AntonioFP45]

I appreciate your input guys!

Basically when the time comes, my choices will be to:

(1) Use Code 100 for the mainline and 83 for branch and sidings
(2) Use Code 83 for the mainline and 70 for sidings.

I'll continue to monitor feedback here as well as ask other HO modelers that go to my LHS of their experiences with their trackwork.

Thanks!

[BRAKIE]

I am currently using Atlas C83 on my industrial switching layout with no problems...The only real difference I can see between the C83 and C100 is the size of the rail.However..The club uses Atlas C100 that is painted and ballast and by golly its hard to tell its C100..

[ksax73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NevinW

This may be my imagination but my staging yard is Atlas code 100 with Atlas #6 turnouts and my layout is code 83 with some code 70. The track in the staging yard seens to stay cleaner and is less prone to derailments than the code 83. The code 83 and 70 seems a bit more tempermental and the turnouts behave better. While the smaller rail looks better there is a section of code 100 that is painted and it doesn't look much worse than the painted 83. Anyone else have similar observations? - Nevin

I would suggest reversing that setup. Code 100 is ideal for modern and/or high speed mainlines. If you look at areas like the NEC, the rails are much "thicker" than other railroads which will more than likely take on the appearance of code 83 track.

Another explanation is that staging may not see as much "action" in terms of continuous operation and therefore the track stays cleaner longer. You'll notice that more frequently used tracks get dirtier, faster.

[Leon Silverman]

The advantage of code 100 is price and possibly durability. The advantage of code 83 is selection: Walters' #10 turnout and #8 double slip switch, although produced by Shinohara, is not available in code 100. You would have to shim these turnouts with posterboard or use transition pieces with code 100.

[AntonioFP45]

Fiatfan, WP8THSUB

Thanks guys,

I appreciate your input. I notice that suddenly there seems to be a number of posts that seem "anti-Code 83" and wondered if there was a cause for concern.

I won't have to worry about deep flanges. My HO locomotives are Proto 1K and 2K, Athearn, Atlas, Stewart, and Model Power.

All of my freight cars are Athearn, and MDC/Roundhouse.

The only equipment that has deep flanges is my 4 car set of Bachmann Metroliners, which I'm currently (yes slowly) upgrading and repainting into Penn Central. Due to the odd sized diameter of the axles, it's hard to find wheel/axle sets that will fit in the truck housing.

I know it's going to be a little tougher for me to solder jumper wires between rail joints, but with practice I should be o.k.

I appreciate the input. Would like to read more, for or against smaller rail sizes. It is good to view both sides of the issues. Just from reading the above posts, I now know that Code 83 track can be more fragile so it should be handled with great care.

High Greens!

[wp8thsub]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

Can those of you using code 83 chime in with some more details please as far as the types of problems you've encountered.

None. There is a growing body of (what I consider to be) internet rumors about the pitfalls of using closer to scale track. Especially if you're using Atlas 83, there is no more work involved in using code 83 and I've found no durability issues.

I actually find smaller rail easier to work with because of how much easier it is to cut with rail nippers (or my favorite - metal shears), and it takes somewhat less time to heat smaller rail to solder it, lessening the chance to melt plastic ties.

[Anonymous]

Everything runs on 100 code. Some engines were made with heavy flanges so they go bumpty bump on the lighter but more correct codes.

[twhite]

I use code 100--mixture of Atlas and Sinohara on the main, and code 83 in the yards. Am seriously thinking of ripping out the code 83 and replacing it with code 100. Why? Darned if I know--but I just like the heft and feel of code 100 better. And despite what you hear, when it's weathered and ballasted, I dare anyone to tell the difference. My friends sure can't, and they've been model railroading as long as I have, and we ALL started right after electricity was invented!
Tom

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cmrproducts

If code 83 is so good WHY doesn't everyone use it in their staging tracks and hidden areas???

Price & durability. Those nice looking scale "spikes" break a whole lot easier than the good old tab "spikes" on the code 100.

[fiatfan]

Antonio,

I use code 83 exclusively with no problems. I've had track down in the basement for the last year and a half. The only problem I've encountered is one switch that shifted it's position during a transition from winter to spring.

As long as the wheels are in gauge, I have zero derailments. Everything gets IM replacement wheels before it hits the rails.

Tom

[AntonioFP45]

Hello guys,

I'm actually wondering now.

I'm just about to start my layout and had planned on using Code 83. After reading this thread, I'm not 100% sure.

I like the realistic look of code 83 and planned to use for main line and branch routes. For industrial sidings I planned on using code 75.

Can those of you using code 83 chime in with some more details please as far as the types of problems you've encountered.

[wp8thsub]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cmrproducts

If code 83 is so good WHY doesn't everyone use it in their staging tracks and hidden areas???

I used 83 on the visible track and 100 in staging. The only reason I chose code 100 for staging was price; per each piece of flextrack and each turnout the lowest price I could find was on code 100. I refuse to use code 100 for visible track in HO because I find it to be unrealistic no matter how it's weathered and ballasted.

Appearance isn't all about the size of the rail. In addition to the rail being oversized, most brands of code 100 lack scale tie and spike detail and have rail of an unrealistic cross section.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cefinkjr

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsf6733

i have code 100 track. is that prototypical.

Not really. It scales out to a bit larger than the ultra-heavy 155 pounds per yard rail that PRR used for only a few years and only on their Horseshoe Curve. The extra installation cost was not justified by extended life and reduced maintenance as they had hoped.

If the trend for heavier freight cars continues (prototypes) then are just might be ahead of the curve.

[chutton01]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsf6733

i have code 100 track. is that prototypical.

I know cefinkjr already mentioned it is not really prototypical - this chart (Table 2, midway in the page) will give you an idea of which prototype rail sizes correspond to HO rail height
http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-15_1.html
I believe 140 lb/yd (or is it now 141 lb/yd?) is becoming a very common rail size, mostly due to the new standard of 286 klb railcar loadings - that's code 83 rail (well, I guess it would be code 84 if there was such a thing). I wonder if we'll need code 87 if the AAR goes to 310 klb loadings? Also note AREA 100 rail - that's close to HO code 70 (which is available, and used a lot for modeling sidings or lightweight branchlines)
When the prototype goes to AAR 500klb loading then code 100 will be the standard [:p]

[PennsyHoosier]

I use both 83 and 100. If I had it to do all over again, I might just use all 100 because of the convenience of it.

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cmrproducts

If code 83 is so good WHY doesn't everyone use it in their staging tracks and hidden areas???

BOB H Clarion, PA

I'm using 83 everwhere, simply because I don't have some huge old stock of 100 to use in my hidden areas. And if I'm going to buy all new, why bother with the trouble of shimming up the 83 to join the hidden 100? Now, if I had a few boxes of Code 100 flex laying around gathering dust, I'd probably use it in the hidden areas to save money.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

I use code 100 and love it.

[cmrproducts]

If code 83 is so good WHY doesn't everyone use it in their staging tracks and hidden areas???

BOB H Clarion, PA

[cefinkjr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsf6733

i have code 100 track. is that prototypical.

Not really. It scales out to a bit larger than the ultra-heavy 155 pounds per yard rail that PRR used for only a few years and only on their Horseshoe Curve. The extra installation cost was not justified by extended life and reduced maintenance as they had hoped.