Hi, Looking around for some flextrack I came to the conclusion that C83 is much more expensive then C100. Why is that and what are the benefits of modelling with C83 over c100? I now that it suposedly looks better but I can not really say that I notice much of a difrence. Is there a good reason besides looks to get c83?
Lillen
Lillen,
Code 83 rail is .083" high; Code 100 is .100" high. Code 83 is closer to prototypical mainline rail, therefore more realistic looking. Code 100 is slightly taller but more bullet proof.
I have Code 83 and have NOT had any problems with it. Some of the older Rivarossi cars and locomotives with deeper wheels flanges might have problems on Code 83 track. All other rolling stock and locomotives with RP-25 flanges will work fine.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Not that I could think of, Lillen. I have used Code 100 in my latest layout because it is cheap, works reliably, is strong, and can allow the passage of deeper flanges that might otherwise get hung up on ballast or other details inside the rails or frogs. As some will agree, once you have it ballasted and painted, it doesn't look much different from the Code 83.
I use code 100 and I think the same way you do, they look close enough to save money by buying code 100. I think code 83 users are more apt to have problems, not that they do, but the potential is stonger with code 83. If you are experienced and know about standards of different track type, wheel flanges, weight and other things, I guess you could work with code 83. I just prefer code 100. Just my
-beegle55
Code 100 track is cheap because it's 50 years old and much of the tooling is paid for. It also apeals to beginners because of price and having lower maintenance than brass track - which is cheaper yet.
Code 83 track is newer and closer to realism. That plus the offering of DCC type switches in code 83, makes it popular on this side of the pond.
Never mind that even more realistic track is available in codes 75, 70, and 55 and fineline 87.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
Lillen--I use Code 100 on my mainline and Code 83 in my yards. Once painted and ballasted, I can't tell the difference between the two of them except for the fact that the ties on Code 83 are skinnier. A lot of modelers who use Code 83 on their mainlines will often revert to Code 100 on their hidden trackage or staging yards, because even though it is 'over-scale', it's also VERY reliable.
So it's really a matter of choice.
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
What always amazes me is that people will spend hundreds of dollars on engines and cars, will spend hours painting and decaling their models, and will complain loudly that a manufacturer did something wrong, yet will buy and use Code 100 rail.
Put a Kadee car, an Atlas Master Series loco, or a piece of brass on Code 100. Then place it on some Code 83, 70 or 55. There is a world of difference in appearance. Small rail makes everything look better and much more realistic.
To me, using Code 100 is like using Lionel tinplate track.
Now I'm not a Proto87 modeler by any means, but the difference in price between Atlas Code 100 and Atlas Code 83 is small in price (40 cents per yard on Trainworld.com) yet huge in appearance.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote:Small rail makes everything look better and much more realistic.
Except trucks equipped with wheels having the standard .110" wheel tread...
Paul3 wrote:What always amazes me is that people will spend hundreds of dollars on engines and cars, will spend hours painting and decaling their models, and will complain loudly that a manufacturer did something wrong, yet will buy and use Code 100 rail.Put a Kadee car, an Atlas Master Series loco, or a piece of brass on Code 100. Then place it on some Code 83, 70 or 55. There is a world of difference in appearance. Small rail makes everything look better and much more realistic.To me, using Code 100 is like using Lionel tinplate track.Now I'm not a Proto87 modeler by any means, but the difference in price between Atlas Code 100 and Atlas Code 83 is small in price (40 cents per yard on Trainworld.com) yet huge in appearance.Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
To some, using code 100 means toy trains, to many of us, it means using track that is stronger and therefore more durable, more tolerant of less than perfect rolling stock and locomotives and is cheaper. Code 100 is more tolerant of less than perfect benchwork. Code 100 is less likely to kink and cause derailments of even perfect rolling stock and locomotives.
If your requirement is to 'run trains', have the kids involved and your mechanical and technical skills are not yet as developed as you'd like, Code 100 is a viable solution.
On the other hand, your plan and vision is for a museum quality, carefully detailed and as true to scale as possible, then Code 83 is viable, however, you'll need to plan for a number of issues that come with code 83. Earlier today, Fred W wrote the following paragraph. I think he outlines additional issues one needs to know when evaluating code 100 vs 83 to make a good decision for you;
fwright wrote: snipDid you seek help on how to overcome your difficulties in laying code 83 track that would run smoothly? Were you aware that different brands of code 83 flex track have very different flex characteristics? Did you understand that Atlas code 83 track has thicker than normal ties to better match up with Atlas code 100 track rather than competitor's code 83 track? Did you realize that except for their US code 83 line, Peco track is made to British standards and tastes, hence the difference in appearance from US makes?Fred W
Did you seek help on how to overcome your difficulties in laying code 83 track that would run smoothly? Were you aware that different brands of code 83 flex track have very different flex characteristics? Did you understand that Atlas code 83 track has thicker than normal ties to better match up with Atlas code 100 track rather than competitor's code 83 track? Did you realize that except for their US code 83 line, Peco track is made to British standards and tastes, hence the difference in appearance from US makes?
Fred W
Thanks for all the replies. The thing is that in Sweden most things are more expensive. I can't get ahold of Atlas here but I have to order it. That figures into the equation. I would rather be able to buy my rails in my own country as you can probably understand.
But for me code 100 might be the way to go. Price is not that much of an issue. That is only an issue back home, not when buying from the US. For the looks I do not care. I can't tell the difrence. Also I use a Big Boy dressed up as a B&O EM-1 so I'm hardly prototypical anyways.
So then it comes down to two things. Reliability and availability. I think there seems to be a strong consensus that c100 is more reliable to use then c83. The room I operate in have temperature difrences between -30 and +45 degrees celsius. I guess this is pro c100.
As to availability, the only thing I haven't found yet is #8 Atlas turnouts. All I can find is #6 wich I guess would do. I'm running large steam and walthers heavyweights as my largest vehicles.
Thanks, Lillen
Oh, one more thing. One the swedish forum where I asked the same thing some posters meant that code 100 might disapear in the not to distant future. Is this propable? I mean it seems that a lot of people still use it? And if it went away, I can't see the problem in starting to use c 83 again.
Both sides of the c83 vs c100 preference issue have been pretty well covered. I happen to be one of those that started my original layout in brass c100 track, many years ago. My Model Railroad Hobby Shop dealer, happens to stock mostly c83 track. My layout requires quite a few double curve switches, which seem to be more available in c83. Maybe I will regret it, but I now buy Nickel Silver track, and still use much of the old brass, scavenged from my former layout. This means that I have to use Transition Rail joiners. Good luck! Bob
Lillen: I have to agree with everything said thus far....On both sides of the many sides to this issue!
I for one feel that the c100 is "bullet proof" and "forgiving" as mentioned, and it may just be that my eyes are as old as I am...But, once the track is down, ballasted and weathered, I can't tell a difference!
Regarding how long c100 will be around: I have to believe that we will see it for many years to come. As stated, it's been a standard for 5o+ years and is still most likely the most popular.
Regarding turnouts: I had heard that Atlas was going to do a larger radii (#8) but personally, I haven't yet seen one. On the other hand, the # 6's will work fine, and should look pretty good too. I think I still have a few Atlas #6 turnouts left over from my project. If you're interested, you can email me.
joe-daddy wrote:To some, using code 100 means toy trains, to many of us, it means using track that is stronger and therefore more durable
more tolerant of less than perfect rolling stock and locomotives
and is cheaper.
Code 100 is more tolerant of less than perfect benchwork.
Code 100 is less likely to kink and cause derailments of even perfect rolling stock and locomotives.
On the other hand, your plan and vision is for a museum quality, carefully detailed and as true to scale as possible, then Code 83 is viable
however, you'll need to plan for a number of issues that come with code 83. Earlier today, Fred W wrote the following paragraph [snipped]. I think he outlines additional issues one needs to know when evaluating code 100 vs 83 to make a good decision for you
The 'debate' is no less silly today than in previous incarnations. If you want cheaper sections of flex track, buy code 100; if you want greater selection of turnouts, buy code 83.
Shilshole,Granted, small rail does make the "fat" .110 wheels look even fatter. I didn't think of that. LOL Sort of like running an ol' Athearn GP7 next to a P2K GP7. But if you can't see the wheel treads, then smaller rail does make everything else look better...
joe-daddy,Since when is Code 100 more "fault tolerant" than Code 83? It's still the same gauge. A bump in Code 100 will be just as bad as a bump in Code 83. A kink in Code 100 will derail the same number of cars as a bump in Code 83. This is a myth, a falsehood if you will, that I have no idea where it came from other than by those that like Code 100 because it's cheaper and are just trying to justify it's use.
Now, Atlas Code 100 is stronger than Atlas Code 83 as the abnormal size of the plastic clips that hold the extra large ties to the extra large rail are more able to resist extraordinary abuse of the track. But there's a simple solution to that...don't whack the track. Atlas Code 83 is pretty strong, and you have to abuse it pretty bad to break it. Simply leaning on it, for example, will not damage it when it's spiked on the layout. You really have to attack it to damage Code 83. Insisting on Code 100 for it's strength over Code 83 is like insisting on driving an M1A2 Ambrams tank to work because of it's strength over a Ford Taurus. Sure, it's stronger, but how much strength do you need?
BTW, even Code 83 isn't for museum quality trackwork, unless you are modeling modern-era mainlines. Code 83 is roughly equivalent to 132 lb. rail, which was not the norm for most railroads back in the day. Code 70 would be better for realism on a historical layout, as it's 100 lb. equivalent is more in line with what railroads were actually running on for mainlines (the NH, for example, used 107 lb. rail for most mainlines). For sidings, Code 55 (which is about 75 lb. rail) is realistic. See http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-15_1.html for details.
As far as Fred W's post goes, it's a bunch of hooey as all of the same problems with Code 83 he mentions are the same in Code 100. Some of the Code 100 doesn't bend the same like Atlas (see Shinohara). Atlas Code 100 doesn't match up with competing brands (see Shinohara). Peco's Code 100 switches are made just like their Code 83's, and so on.
joe-daddy, if your primary requirement is to "run trains", then why even model in HO scale? Stick with Lionel. Nothing is better for reliable running than Lionel. Heck, the wheels have magnets to stick to the rail better. Heavy weight and big flanges go a long way for less than perfect trackwork. The kids would have to swing sledge hammers to break them. And their track can be used over just about any surface imaginable (carpet, plywood, concrete, dirt...Lionel track will run over all of it). Seriously, Lionel has it all over HO for "running trains"...and if that's the most important thing, why model HO at all? Sure, it's totally unrealistic, but it's reliable...
Lillen wrote: Oh, one more thing. One the swedish forum where I asked the same thing some posters meant that code 100 might disapear in the not to distant future. Is this propable? I mean it seems that a lot of people still use it? And if it went away, I can't see the problem in starting to use c 83 again. Lillen
I have not read further down your thread to this point, so someone may have alerted you to this already; either Atlas, but I think it is Peco, has announced longer turnouts, one of the a #8, in the last issue of MR....I hope I have that right.
Even if I am wrong, have you ever considered making your own? If you are in the hobby for the duration, and are likely to have to continue to buy/replace turnouts, why not learn to make your own? Yours will be better than anything you can buy, and you will always be able to manufacture your own unique requirements...as you must have seen in the thread by Tim Warris when he shows us what can be done. If you don't know what I am talking about, look down the Weekend Photo Fun thread and see what I mean.
Just a suggestion for you, Lillen...I know you are going full tilt on your layout, and don't want or need impediments, but this is a useful detour for you.
Selector, I will look into that. The thing is this. Right now I'm back at the university. I take two courses at once to save money and time, one a masters degree in history and the other a teacher. But money is tight. So I want to save money and time. But, this is very much a trial layout. It's not supose to be the final one. Because when I'm done with my studies in two years(I'll be 32) the plan is to expand my house by a 100 square meteres and get a full sixe trainroom. That will be aproximately 5*10 metres. So this is a way to learn and have fun while I wait. So learning to make turnouts wold be great to do. Where do I buy the stuff? And what do I buy?
But this also the reason I don't want to sink to much money in stuff that can't be moved. My current layout is 3*5 metres and that is OK but to small for my taste. I wan't everything I buy now to be salvagable if possible. That is Why I won't solder the turnouts, only the track and so on.
Any tips are greatly apreciated. Right now I'm leaning towards getting the Atlas c83 from the U.S. The difrence is 80$ for 20 turnouts and 100 pieces of flextrack and that is OK. In swedent he difrence is huge. I would have to spend something like 1500$ to get that in the brands available(Peco and Rocco).
Thanks Magnus
Paul3 wrote:joe-daddy,Since when is Code 100 more "fault tolerant" than Code 83? It's still the same gauge. A bump in Code 100 will be just as bad as a bump in Code 83. A kink in Code 100 will derail the same number of cars as a bump in Code 83. This is a myth, a falsehood if you will, that I have no idea where it came from other than by those that like Code 100 because it's cheaper and are just trying to justify it's use.
Code 83 is less durable, meaning it is less rigid, easier to bend,distort and therefore kink. That code 83 will kink easier than code 100 is fact. Track that kinks is less fault tolerant that track that kinks less. Sound logic, not myth, but fact.
It is a fact that many, not all code 83 turnouts and x crossings have shallow groves and old cars will hop or derail. This is not so on Code 100 turnouts and crossings, therefore code 83 is less fault tolerant of wheel types than code 100. This is not myth, but fact.
Paul3 wrote: joe-daddy, if your primary requirement is to "run trains", then why even model in HO scale? Stick with Lionel. Nothing is better for reliable running than Lionel. Heck, the wheels have magnets to stick to the rail better. Heavy weight and big flanges go a long way for less than perfect trackwork. The kids would have to swing sledge hammers to break them. And their track can be used over just about any surface imaginable (carpet, plywood, concrete, dirt...Lionel track will run over all of it). Seriously, Lionel has it all over HO for "running trains"...and if that's the most important thing, why model HO at all? Sure, it's totally unrealistic, but it's reliable...
My HO railroad running code 83 or 100 is as reliable as a Lionel/MTH or LGB for that matter and is IMHO more realistic. That I like to run trains in HO size because of selection, size and capability is one of the reasons we have choice.
Paul3 wrote: As far as Fred W's post goes, it's a bunch of hooey as all of the same problems with Code 83 he mentions are the same in Code 100. Some of the Code 100 doesn't bend the same like Atlas (see Shinohara). Atlas Code 100 doesn't match up with competing brands (see Shinohara). Peco's Code 100 switches are made just like their Code 83's, and so on.
Paul, I want to be gentle about how I say this, Fred Wright is correct, your post is factually incorrect, which goes to the credibility of your logic. Peco Code 100 switches are different in construction that Code 83. Code 100 Peco turnouts works well with little or no modification, however using Peco code 83 turnouts with some brands of Flex (Atlas code 83 for one) require significant work to make compaitlble. Fred's comments are documented fact. That there may be incompatibliity issues with Code 100 is a given considering all the different manufacturers however the issues with code 83 are far more prevalent and serious.
I'll let it rest with this post.
With kind regard,
Joe Daddy
Paul3 wrote:Shilshole,Granted, small rail does make the "fat" .110 wheels look even fatter. I didn't think of that. LOL Sort of like running an ol' Athearn GP7 next to a P2K GP7. But if you can't see the wheel treads, then smaller rail does make everything else look better...
Wot, you mean you haven't sliced and reattached all your vintage Athearn hoods to achieve scale width??!? Neither have I...
On not seeing the treads: I'd pretty much restricted use of Intermountain semi-scale wheels to tankers and logging skeletons, where they can be seen, and to Westerfields and kitbashes-to-prototype that deserved them. However, their rolling characteristics are so superior to Kadees that eventualy I'll use them on everything. Haven't decided whether or not to use NWSL semi-scales on diesel power, since they're really hidden.
As far as Fred W's post goes, it's a bunch of hooey as all of the same problems with Code 83 he mentions are the same in Code 100.
Yes, but it wasn't hooey in original context. Somebody quote-mined or misunderstood...
Magnus, I purchased the Canadian Fast Tracks turnout jigs. I bought their kit for #8 turnouts, and the jig is machined to allow you to make right and left hand turnouts. I also purchase a jig and kit for #6 double-slip, which is a symmetrical turnout...evenly left and right.
The initial cost will choke some modelers. I think I paid nearly CDN$300 for the two kits. However, apart from that purchase, I can now make any number of turnouts I want, including manufacturing other types from scratch...this is the beauty. Once you learn how they go together, it is only an adjustment in geometry to get any you make to work beautifully.
I have not worked with my hands...I have always worked with my mind. So, learning soldering and carpentry have been challenges for me...not unpleasant, but definitely stretching me, if you understand. Older folks don't stretch easily...if at all...it hurts. So, my first turnout, and perhaps yours too, will not be so great. Thereafter, they get much better, and they get much cheaper. By the time you, Magnus, have made your fifth #8, your initial cost will have been recovered, particularly at the prices you suggest you will have to pay. No shipping, no duty (do you pay for customs in Sweden?), and no mark-up. Ever...again.
I made the double-slip switch in the in front of the man figure standing with the pole in his hand. It is worth about US$30. The jig was no bargain for me because I only made two, this and a now cannibalized first. I wanted the experience, and this was the way to do it. I will always have the jig if I ever want another, and now I now how to make one.
Here is their site. When you have an hour, watch his video on using the jigs.
www.handlaidtrack.com.
-Crandell
Thanks once again Selector. I will look into those things. It sure sounds intresting. I didn't know this was a topic that would stir up this much feelings.
On the topic of taxes and customs in Sweden. We are a country based on taxes. The former government actually ran on a promise to increase taxes. When we buy something we have 25% VAT on it. When I buy stuff from the U.S I have to pay a fee for paying taxes. That is roughly 15$, then there is tarrifs and then I pay Swedish VAT on it. It's alot but it's still cheaper then buying at home. If I'm allowed to go even more OT on this topic, if you earn minimum wage in Sweden you still pay(where I live) 34% tax on your income.
Good bless America I say!
Selector I have seen some of that video now. It seems great. But do you now any of the "standard" online retailers that sell the kits?
Fast Tracks sells them directly...there should be a link indicating you can go ahead and make a purchase.
I have sent you an email...please read.
Paul3 wrote:What always amazes me is that people will spend hundreds of dollars on engines and cars, will spend hours painting and decaling their models, and will complain loudly that a manufacturer did something wrong, yet will buy and use Code 100 rail.Put a Kadee car, an Atlas Master Series loco, or a piece of brass on Code 100. Then place it on some Code 83, 70 or 55. There is a world of difference in appearance. Small rail makes everything look better and much more realistic.To me, using Code 100 is like using Lionel tinplate track.Now I'm not a Proto87 modeler by any means, but the difference in price between Atlas Code 100 and Atlas Code 83 is small in price (40 cents per yard on Trainworld.com) yet huge in appearance.
Well said. As I am a P/87 fan, I cannot abide Code 100, in any instance. My old T/C was Code 83, and the new generation is using Code 83 and Code 70 where appropriate.
Hi Crandell, thanks for your e-mail. Unfortunaly I can't answer it in e-mail form since there is no return adress. So I reply here.
I was very moved by your gracious sugestion. Most unusual. I will decline with the greatest respect and admiration for your gesture since the trouble, risk and expense propably excedes just ordering them myself. Something I will probably do given how good that video was. So as I said, I'm extremly gratefull. I told my wife about this and she was equally astonished that someone would do that.
From the depth of my soul, thanks!
Magnus
No problem, Magnus. For future reference, you can use the icon below this text box (look down), and you have a choice between pm and email. PM is for "private message", and email is just that. Click on that icon, and an email text box will open for you. Type your message, and it will be sent to my email address that I provided the service when I registered. It is how I sent one to you.
joe-daddy wrote:
The "myth" I was referring to was your idea that Code 100 is somehow more forgiving of less than perfect rolling stock & locos, and more forgiving of less than perfect benchwork. I do agree that Code 100 is stronger (heck, I said so...see above). I do agree that it is more resistant to kinking (by a small degree). But the idea that your less than perfect cars will stay on the track just because it's Code 100 vs. Code 83 is a myth. Just like the idea that somehow Code 100 will traverse less than perfect benchwork better than Code 83 is a myth. The quality of the cars and the quality of the benchwork have nothing to do with it.
That's like saying that modelers shouldn't use knuckle couplers because they aren't compatible with Mantua hook-n-loops. Is there a North American model made today that doesn't have RP25 flanges? I think Rivarossi was the last one using NEM flanges (and even they changed to RP25 years ago). And they were pretty much the only one using those deep flanges since RP25 was introduced a long, long time ago. I even have old Varney kits from the 1950's...and they all have small flanges.
So as long as you don't have ancient AHM/Rivarossi models (or European models), then Code 83 is perfectly fine for all occasions.
I'm confused. First you say that realism isn't important, and now you say it is. Which is it?
Paul, I want to be gentle about how I say this, Fred Wright is correct, your post is factually incorrect, which goes to the credibility of your logic.
It is your post that contains the myth that Code 100 makes your trains run better. If you run an RP25 loco on Code 83 and it derails, ripping up the track and replacing it with Code 100 will not make the loco stay on the track (provided you lay the track exactly the same).
Peco Code 100 switches are different in construction that Code 83.
I see that. I guess I was thinking of their Code 75 vs. their Code 100 switches...which are constructed the same. My apologies for missing that.
Code 100 Peco turnouts works well with little or no modification, however using Peco code 83 turnouts with some brands of Flex (Atlas code 83 for one) require significant work to make compaitlble. Fred's comments are documented fact.
"Significant"? What I've done with Walthers Code 83 switches is to shim the whole switch with a sheet of poster board to make it match Atlas Code 83. Are Peco's any different than Walthers in that regard?
That there may be incompatibliity issues with Code 100 is a given considering all the different manufacturers however the issues with code 83 are far more prevalent and serious.
"Issues with Code 83 are far more prevalent and serious" than with Code 100? Nonsense. Just try to mix Shinohara Code 100 track with Atlas Code 100 track. The problem is the same. Nice try, but compatibility issues with Code 83 are no worse than with Code 100.
Shilshole,Nope, I haven't cut down my old Athearn wide-bodies. Mainly because I don't have any...any more. I got rid of those a long time ago.
The closer the camera gets to the rail heads the more noticable it is. I really noticed it with someone's camera-on-a-locomotive video. Wow, the code 100 rails looked enormous. For this reason alone, I will definitely be using code 83 or smaller for any future perminant layout(s).
Personally, I use code 100 on my portable modules because I tried code 83 and it was always (I mean every setup take down cycle) getting damaged in transport. With the code 100 I've had only two accidents.
There seem to be more and more companies making code 83 track in more and more varied pieces. The code 100 market seems to be stuck with the same "pieces" that have been made for years and years.
Paul3 wrote: To me, using Code 100 is like using Lionel tinplate track.
Paul III, you are incorrect. Code 100 will always give better operation than code 83. The 17 thousandth is not worth the hassle or money. Once it is ballasted the difference is minor.