Water Level Route Hmmm. My model railroad includes rolling stock with "oversized" wheels, couplers, grab irons, etc. The vehicles and figures are static. Plenty of vehicles don't have drivers in them. The color from the led lights is all wrong for representing lighting from my modeled era. The layout lighting is from lights all along above the layout, not from a point source like the sun. Once completed, the water in my river won't flow. The "glass" in building windows is too thick. No realistic smoke from smokestacks. The ballast is likely oversized. The railroad ties probably are too. I'm not going to get up in arms over slightly oversized rail.
Hmmm. My model railroad includes rolling stock with "oversized" wheels, couplers, grab irons, etc. The vehicles and figures are static. Plenty of vehicles don't have drivers in them. The color from the led lights is all wrong for representing lighting from my modeled era. The layout lighting is from lights all along above the layout, not from a point source like the sun. Once completed, the water in my river won't flow. The "glass" in building windows is too thick. No realistic smoke from smokestacks. The ballast is likely oversized. The railroad ties probably are too. I'm not going to get up in arms over slightly oversized rail.
MikeThat is the best description of my model railroad I’ve seen!!! Right on the money.When 99% of my visitors can’t tell any difference in the above discrepancies’ what difference does the .017” rail height make.I went with code 83 in 1988, for me it was new and wanting to go with the latest stuff I did it to it. Not having any experience with the new to me smaller rail and because I had a box of Atlas code 100 track I used it in my hidden areas. I’ve never had any problems with either.I’m obviously not a rivet counter so the .017” didn’t do anything for me but I had the latest and greatest track going for the 1990s, and at the time I was just turning 50. At 80+ who cares, it is just a model railroad. I’ve never in my 69 years of HO model railroading had anyone say anything about something being out of scale.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
+1
Well said
Paul
riogrande5761That being the case, why was code 83 or 70 introduced? Afterall, it all looks the same, so it is said.
There is a perceptable difference between code 70 and code 100 rail, but not really between code 83 and code 100 rail. In N scale, the difference between code 55 and code 80 rail is quite obvious. IMHO, code 83 is a waste of money, better to go code 70 rail, if you don´t like code 100.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Jim, That battle cry has been around since C83 was introduce. You would not believe the debates over C100 vs C83 vs C70 back in the 60s.
C100 was needed for deep flange wheels, C83 match the RP25 wheels and thus C83 squeezed out C70 and became the new defacto standard for "serious" modelers.. C70 was considered to light for main line rail.
For my for 66-70 ISLs I used C70 and wheels that followed RP25.
I'm planning on using C70 on my new ISL.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Tinplate Toddler From a usual viewing distance of two feet (or a little more), I doubt that anyone can really tell the difference between painted, weathered and properly ballasted code 83 and code 100 track, unless the are laid side by side.
From a usual viewing distance of two feet (or a little more), I doubt that anyone can really tell the difference between painted, weathered and properly ballasted code 83 and code 100 track, unless the are laid side by side.
I disagree. I can usually tell the difference right away on an HO/HOn3 layout - and it's even more noticeable in N. But that could be because I use the smaller rail sizes in HO/HOn3, so the larger size looks out of place.
That said, I have never knocked people for using oversize rail on their layouts. It's a matter of priorities. There are many who will not use curved or custom turnouts because they are not "prototypical". For the most part, the many are right. But track that "flows" through smooth curves right through the turnouts looks even more protoypical to me at the normal viewing distances.
I'm glad we have choices.
Fred W
Mike
That being the case, why was code 83 or 70 introduced? Afterall, it all looks the same, so it is said.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
IRONROOSTER Tinplate Toddler From a usual viewing distance of two feet (or a little more), I doubt that anyone can really tell the difference between painted, weathered and properly ballasted code 83 and code 100 track, unless the are laid side by side. I agree. Plus, code 110 wheels, which are the norm, are too wide. Smaller rail just emphasizes that even more. Unless you're into proto87 with scaled down wheels, I don't think it matters much. Paul
I agree.
Plus, code 110 wheels, which are the norm, are too wide. Smaller rail just emphasizes that even more. Unless you're into proto87 with scaled down wheels, I don't think it matters much.
Guys, I have used C-70 before and the wide .110 wheels wasn't noticable under normal "birds eye" operating viewing.
I agree weathered C-100 track doesn't look that big.
I mean you can do both, there are transition joiners that can switch between Code 100 to Code 83 even down to Code 70 if you really want it. Create a cool effect with a heavy Code 100 mainline that slowly drops down to a Code 70 rail spur.
Also remember if you choose to follow a modular standard on any future project, different modules have preset standards, Free-Mo for example is Code 83 on mainline rated modules and can be Code 70 on branchline. I don't know what the NMRA "Triple track" module standard is, but it likely is Code 100. All the codes have their purposes. 83 is my personal favorite, but many people are just as happy with 100.
I started in the hobby when life was much simpler. You chose code 100 or built model airplanes. The second layout offered two choices and I was bitten by the code 83 bug. The third layout was/is a switching layout with a lot of in-street running, a lot of sidings and track shared with a fleet of streetcars. C83 gave me all kinds of grief, especially in 'push' maneuvers. Out came the code 83 and the Atlas #4's. What helped the decision was Peco's code 100 turnouts. No need for switch machines and the need to hide them under the table - at least those close to the layout edge - and especially for those in in-street running. I overcame the toy-train stigma of sectional track and like it because it provides an accurate radius for my streetcars (I use 15" radius, and yes for all you bigshots with minimum 32" radius Atlas does make it. Yeah, I'm not crazy about the tie size, but again, for the track buried in the street I couldn't care if the ties xame in pink. For the rest of the track, I paint the ties and rail and ballast and it's a done deal. No derailments.
Also, a big decider was at the time I was thinking about changing to Peco, the only turnout in code 83 was their wye.
Bottom line, don't beat yourself up over the code. The nitpickers will move on to another part of your layout to criticize. If I were building a switching layout I would go with Peco and determine the code by the availability of turnouts.
jlwittIf it's a small switching layout, why not hand lay the track?
The OP's profile says he is 20 years old, so more power to him. At my age, I'd rather just chew on track spikes, then lay my own track, while I mail order track.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
If it's a small switching layout, why not hand lay the track? Get a FastTracks jig (or two), some pc and wood ties, some ME rail, and go at it. I have ~30 turnouts on my layout and I built them all. They operate flawlessly. The code 83 jigs also work with code 70 ME rail, so you can build either/both. I have a #6 turnout jig and a #4 wye. I'm sad I don't have any more to build, I really enjoyed it! The two jigs (~$100 each), amortized over 30 turnouts, plus rail/ties/spikes, is less than $10 per turnout.
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?
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?
On layouts that depict heavy hauling the code 100 track would be accurate verses lighter loads using the code 83, but to answer your question I would use the 100. there is a trasition piece of track that is 83 on one end and 100 on the other. that way you keep 83 laid track and new addition track would be 100.
I'd add that my view is that I'd maybe see '83 as more future-proof, possibly.
Also for peco the turnout check-rails are metal not black plastic and the ties and their interface with the rail is more finely modeled.
I used peco 83 for years without issue, although I do know that many exhibition modular modellers here in the UK opt for code 100 as it's seen as more robust.
In praise of code 100 this layout uses Shinohara code 100 and I think it looks perfect for the modern US prototype.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55nk-bhCir0
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.
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
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.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad for Chicago Trainspotting and Budget Model Railroading.
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
Living the dream.
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
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
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.
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
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!
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.
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?
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?
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.