Building my new switching layout and I'm between code 100 or 83. My past layout was all atlas sectional code 83. I'm going to be using peco and wanted to get a good opinion from people who use 100. I like code 83 but the PECO 83 turnouts are $10 more than the 100. Is it worth it to spend a little more for 83?
It depends on how picky you are. If you are picky on how well "to scale" everything looks, then you may not like code 100 rail.
If it is used to model a heavy main line, it looks ok. If it's not a heavy main line, it looks huge.
For a switching layout, code 83, or even code 70, is going to be much closer "to scale" than code 100. But if you can get past the looking too large, it will work just fine.
Personally, I prefer code 83 over code 100. Yard tracks and industry sidings/spurs and switching areas I prefer code 70 over code 83.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Ringo58 Building my new switching layout and I'm between code 100 or 83. My past layout was all atlas sectional code 83. I'm going to be using peco and wanted to get a good opinion from people who use 100. I like code 83 but the PECO 83 turnouts are $10 more than the 100. Is it worth it to spend a little more for 83?
That's a hard question to answer. How many turnouts are we talking here? What's your budget? If you can afford it and it's worth it to you, I would advise you to do it.
Not quite the same thing, but I built my layout using Atlas Code 100 flextrack and turnouts on the main, Code 83 flextrack and turnouts in yards and sidings. I wish now I had used Code 83 on the main, and thought about Code 70 on sidings and yards...
Gary
Hello All,
I use Atlas Code 100 track; both sectional and flex, with Atlas Snap Switches, Custom Line and PECO turnouts.
The height difference of 0.017" (corrected) really doesn't concern me. However, the $10.00 between the two does.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
I built the first part of my layout with code 100, but later sections with code 83. I think the code 83 looks substantially better. I find it easier to ballast code 83 as well, since the ties are thinner. As I recall, some of the speciality turnouts like dual-curve and 3-way, have more suppliers in code 83.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Isn't it like asking us how much should you spend on a bottle of Chardonnay? The local big box wine store has 36 priced <$6 (wouldn't drink any of those) and 18 > $99 (wouldn't buy any of those)
You know how many you need and you know your financial status. If you don't have a budget, you probably should. Otherwise you could end up like some guys on youtube, who buy on a whim, and have 1000 pieces of rolling stock, squirreled away in boxes that will never see a train track and building kits, you will never build.
Say you need 20 turnouts, and spending the extra $200 makes you wince, use code 100 or go with another manufacturer.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
jjdamnitThe height difference of 0.73" really doesn't concern me. However, the $10.00 between the two does.
The height difference is only 0.017", I think you made a typo.
Once weathered, I think code 100 track looks fine in all except up-close photographs, and you have the advantage of knowing any equipment should run OK on it, including those old Rivarossi locomotives that can be had for bargain price now.
Of course, I was building in N scale in the 1980s and 1990s, and we used code 80 rail that was MUCH WORSE than code 100 in HO scale.
I use code 83 (Walthers/Shinohara) because I liked the massive variety in the product line and how easy it was to find. Now it is much harder to find and has begun to command some crazy prices. I would not choose this line today.
Ultimately it is your choice, weigh the pros and cons of each and go from there.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I prefer the smaller ties on Atlas 83 over the 100 ties, but that's just me.
For me, it's not that 0.017" is a huge visible height difference; that's just over a 1/64" after all. However, smaller rails make our model trains look bigger and more to scale, while giant fat Code 100 rail makes everything on them look more toy-like. It's just like fine handrails vs. thick ones. There isn't much difference in diameter between an old Athearn BB wire handrail and, say, the latest Rapido wire handrail. But when applied to a model and painted, the difference is stark by comparison.I will never use Code 100 ever again.
BigDaddy Isn't it like asking us how much should you spend on a bottle of Chardonnay? The local big box wine store has 36 priced <$6 (wouldn't drink any of those) and 18 > $99 (wouldn't buy any of those)
Rich
Alton Junction
Note that with Peco track it's more than just the rail height to compare their code 100 to code 83. Peco Code 100 track is euro-style, with curves through the frogs, they are not numbered turnouts. The Code 83 is more expensive not just because it's smaller and a bit more fiddly to make, but it is also more of a scale model scaled to AREA drawings, North American practice, and the turnouts have actual number frogs, with straight line diverging routes.
You can't just take a track plan made for Peco 100 and drop in Peco 83. It won't line up.
Atlas has 2 types of code 100 - Snap Track, where the turnouts are curved, and Custom Line, where the turnouts have proper frog number angles (though the angle of their #4 is actually 4 1/2). Plus they have Custom Line with Code 83 rail. You can take a Custom Line Code 100 track plan and swap in the equivalent Custom Line Code 83 turnouts and it should all line up.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
SeeYou190The height difference is only 0.017", I think you made a typo.
Can I blame "autocorrect"???
After checking your math you are correct. !!!
richhotrainYou can't just leave us hanging. Which Chardonnay would you choose and how much a bottle? You can buy a great Chardonnay for around $16 like Chateau Ste Michelle Indian Wells Chardonnay.
Personally I prefer Viognier over Chardonnay! !
jjdamnitCan I blame "autocorrect"???
Sure you can. I blame autocorrect all the time!
Randy,One would think that Atlas switches of different Codes but with the same number frog would be the same...but they aren't. The Code 100 and Code 83 switches vary from each other. From 3rdPlanIt's library:Atlas Code 100 Customline #4 switch:Frog: 12.5o Normal length: 9"Routing length: 7 23/32"Entry to intersection: 3 3/16"Rail Closure Radius: 20"Atlas Code 83 Customline #4 switch:Frog: 14.25o Normal length: 9"Routing length: 8"Entry to intersection: 4 1/16"Rail Closure Radius: 26"
Atlas Code 100 Customline #6 switch:Frog: 9.5o Normal length: 12"Routing Length: 10"Entry to Intersection: 4 1/32"Rail Closure Radius: 36"Atlas Code 83 Customline #6 switch:Frog: 9.5o Normal length: 12"Routing Length: 10"Entry to Intersection: 4 1/32"Rail Closure Radius: 48 15/32"
Atlas Code 100 Customline #8 switch:Frog: 7.125o Normal length: 13 1/2"Routing Length: 12 5/32"Entry to Intersection: 5 1/2"Rail Closure Radius: 75 11/16"Atlas Code 83 Customline #8 switch:Frog: 7.02o Normal length: 13 1/2"Routing Length: 12 1/8""Entry to Intersection: 4 5/32"Rail Closure Radius: 60"The Atlas #6 Code 100 & Code 83 switches are the closest to each other, but they are not exactly the same. Why are any of them different? I have no idea.
I've never had a CSM chardonnay, but I will keep my eye out. I like their wines. I've been in search of an affordable chardonnay. Our house wine is a Pinot Grigio, by Priolla.
My uncle founded a winery in Napa, but we he passed away the family discount vanished and his son jacked the prices up. We just drank the last bottle of a 2008 Pinot, that my wife bought for me at around $35/bottle. It looks like my cousin would be selling it for over $200 if he had any left.
It was really good, but would I pay 200,...........no.
So I don't get the thread locked, My turnouts are Walthers and Atlas code 83
PaulWhen I was making my Atlas double crossover I called Atlas Technical and specifically ask them if there was any difference between the #6 code 100 and code 83 turnouts and was told the footprint was identical. I had a code 100 and after he confirmed they were the same I ordered the code 83s. When I overlaid them I couldn’t see any difference by eye, they did appear to be identical.I had designed my double crossover using the code 100 turnouts as a go by and it went together perfect.
https://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/june-25-2012-my-double-crossover.html
Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
And with the PECO turnouts, if it's a curved frog (like Atlas Snap switches) that will throw off the diverging routes geometry on a switching layout. Unless its designed for PECO 100, it probably won't fit correctly.
But, aren't the insulfrog 100 #4's an actual #4? Or am I incorrect?
On my next ISL I plan on using Peco C-70 track since and IMHO both C83 and C100 looks to large for a industrial park.
However.
One problem facing short lines and terminal switching roads is the freight cars is getting to heavy for old light rail that is decades old.
For a newly built industrial parks maybe C-83 might the the better choice?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I want to use the Peco 70 in my yard and on sidings, but they need to get the darn turnouts shipping. Been promising them for 2 years now. The flex track is available.
There is no Code 100 #4 Peco, only Small, Medium, and Large - all have the same frog angle, but different radii. Peco Code 83 #4 is a #4, so pretty tight. The Atlas 4 is a 4 1/2 so a bit better - still too sharp for larger equipment but less sharp than 18" radius.
In my version of 3rd PlanIt (12.006.001) - despite the properties page showing a bunch of differences - including using different units in the case of the #6, one just says #6, the other shows the angle as the correct 9.5 degrees for a #6 - is that the diverging route of the #4 Code 83 is a little longer. I drew one of each, the code 100 in one layer, and the code 83 in another, then positioned them exactly on top of one another by setting the origina X and Y for both to the same number. With Edit only active layer turned on, it allows you to overlay them without connecting. That's the only visible difference - in the #4.
I don't have any Atlas turnouts on hand to compare, and it's been probably 25 years since I had a Code 100 Custom Line turnout around.
Hi Ringo58,
Just for the sake of interest, here are Atlas Code 100 and Code 83 side by side:
My old club decided on Code 83 when we started our new layout in 2017. We initially decided to use Atlas flex track and Peco turnouts, but when we added up the cost of the Peco Code 83 Streamline Electrofrog turnouts vs Atlas Code 83 Custom Line turnouts, we decided to save ourselves $1000 in turnout costs by using Atlas.
Note that there are a couple of things that may be different between the club's situation and your own. One is that we used Tortioses on all the turnouts. Had we used Peco turnouts we would have had to remove all of the throw bar springs which kind of eliminates one of their strong points. If you are going to use Tortoises then I would suggest considering Atlas Code 83 Custom Line turnouts instead of Peco. The Atlas turnouts work really well.
Another thing to consider is that, because you are building a switching layout, you may want to power the frogs. If you are going to use two axle switchers then you will definitely want to power the frogs. Both the Peco Electrofrogs and the Atlas Code 83 turnouts allow you to do that. The Peco Electrofrog comes with a frog feed wire built in whereas the Atlas requires that you tap the hole that is already built into the metal frog and then use a suitable bolt or screw to attach a frog feed wire. (That's easy to do, but you don't want to tap the hole all the way through. You want the bolt or screw to be an interference fit in order to obtain a good electrical connection. The Atlas frog is very difficult to solder to, although it can be done.)
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
When it comes to track appearrance, skinnier is always better. A very similar debate happens in HOn3, where many swear by Code 55. I've got a little, Most of what I use is Code 70. Once you weather and dirt it in, it's a lot harder to tell the difference. And the older I get, the less I can see the difference. But Code 70 is marginally sturdier than 55, so that's also a good thing IMO. You can either obsess over track or you pick your dragons to slay and those you just send on down the line.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I am stockpiling code 70 supplies for the day when I start my branchline railroad. I am also awaiting Peco's code 70 switches; seems like they have been in limbo forever.
After you paint code 100 rail it looks much smaller than it does in bare bright nickel silver. I lucked out on a stash of used code 100 track for free and so my layout is all code 100. After I brush painted the sides of the rail in rail brown the code 100 looks quite decent.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
The standard for our portable modules was code 100 and Peco insulfrog turnouts. After painting various shades of rust the rails look dramatically different.
For my home layout I was considering code 70 for the mains and a combination of code 55 and 40 for yards and spurs. All hand laid on CVT ties. But after the grandkids moved in I have lost the space. I did experiment with some N scale code 40 on the CVT branch line ties but it really does not look all that great. The rail base is way too small for the tie plates and the HO wheels are gigantic in width. Unless you are going scale wheels track code makes little sense to worry about.
Something to consider.
Pete
wrench567 a combination of code 55 and 40 for yards and spurs
I laid one HO scale spur with code 40 rail soldered to PCB ties. It was a lot of work, and actually looked kind of silly.
Micro Engineering code 55 track is as small as I will use now.
Here we go again. If anyone's interested in earlier discussions about it on this forum: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/109265.aspx. See you in six months to discuss this topic again!
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/109265.aspx
Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad for Chicago Trainspotting and Budget Model Railroading.
SeeYou190 wrench567 a combination of code 55 and 40 for yards and spurs I laid one HO scale spur with code 40 rail soldered to PCB ties. It was a lot of work, and actually looked kind of silly. Micro Engineering code 55 track is as small as I will use now. -Kevin
Friend of mine did his old N scale layout with code 40, hand laid the turnouts. Looked nice. He tried some code 25 for sidings - code 25 'rail' is just wire pressed into an oval shape, there is no web, head, and base detail - because you couldn;t see it. You don't notice that unless yoou use a magnifier. But he also said, never again, it was just too small to work with.
If you want availablility, robustness, and relatively less spendy, use Code 100.
If your priorities are different, say if you want realistic dioramas or scenes on a layout where your camera will be down at 'eye level', go with Code 50-ish and up to Code 83.
Here is how large Code 100 looks:
As you can see, it's right up around the equivalent of 165 pounds/yd.
Code 83 is quite noticeably more modest in size, but you probably won't notice until you see similar images side-by-side, or the tracks themselves in situ.