For some roads, Code 100 is closer to prototype. For instance, to model the C&O, code 100 is better than code 83.
As stated many times, once painted and ballasted, it's hard to tell the difference.
Gee, this sounds almost like an Atlas Code55 vs. Anything Else discussion on an N scale board.
Magnus, it sounds like, through all the sturm and drang, you've gotten a pretty good handle on the factors and compromises involved and how they relate to your situation, enjoy building your layout. If you do give the FastTracks jig(s) a tryout, let us know how it works out for you. I'm fascinated by them, and plan on building some N Scale #8 C55 double crossovers and #10 C55 turnouts for NTrak use when fundage permits.
Finally, some geographic reality for my fellow North Americans. Most of Europe is much farther north than we normally think, because we usually think in terms of climate. Sunny Rome, Italy is at almost the same latitude as New York City and Chicago! Expanding on what Magnus said, the Gulf Stream drives most of the European climate, tempering the cold Arctic air. For us, that cold air originating in the same Arctic gets to spill down across the Canadian Shield resulting in much colder weather at similar latitudes.
Grace and peace, BD
el-capitan wrote: Lillen, It's I hope you did find some value in the posts made.
Lillen,
It's I hope you did find some value in the posts made.
I certainly did and I sure hope that everyone involved understands that I'm gratefull for both sides arguments.
Thanks everyone, Magnus
I commend you on staying on the high ground and not sinking to the level of others on this thread. It's I hope you did find some value in the posts made.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread, Good and bad. I truly apreciate all of your efforts to help me to make the "right" choise. On that note I will leave this argument behind me and go about my buisness as nothing have happened. No hard feelings on my half, sometimes arguments get heated and with the faceless comunication of the internet things are easily said that would have better been left unmentioned.
If anyone have gotten hurt by anything I said I apologize and I hope that I and Don can continue and try to help each other in the future. My best wishes for all of you.
Magnus
Hi again.
The problem with space is an obvious for everyone here in Europe. The average home that is built here in Sweden is half that of the average in the U.S. There is simply not that many options for me. I plan to ad about 80 square metres in a few years. That will provide me with enough space to move my layout indoors. But until then I don't have a choise. So I accept that poor weather and certain problems will be a part of my hobby. But that is OK. During the winther I can do other stuff and paint buildings and so on. It's all about adapting to reality.
It's the gulf stream that makes this area habitable. Just look at the map on the middle of Seden, there is roughyly where I am so there is a bit left until I would live on the arctic cirkle. It's a few hours by car. If I put it this way, some of my classmates at the university lives north of it. The first snow ususally falls in November and then there is snow steadily from December till about now. Spring here have arrived now and the snow is melting fast. I will probably be able to enter my trainroom properly soon. As it is now I can squezze in but I can not get lumber and larger materials in there wich prohibits certain kind of work. In late October it will be cold in there so I wouldn't lay track then. But I have run trains during very cold days and they don't seems to be bothered about it. I guess you get used to the weather if you live up here. It's adapt or move away. I choose to move here and I love it.
Don did not insult me in Swedish and I apologize if it looked like that. That was not my intention. Svenska and Flicka means Swedish and girl so quite harmless. What I meant is that I do not like to be caled a liar by someone who have no proof and no reason to say that.
Awwww Geeeez, now everybody's gonna know about the MRR groupies!
But if you really want to attract them Magnus, you've got to start a thread about how big your locomotive is.
I was going to post last night but I got home from darts pretty late, and shall we say had a couple, so I refrained. You make a good point about the cost of the track Magnus, and the worst part is that it's been established on this thread too.
In any case Don, you're failing to realize the resiliency or the model railroader. Taking him at his word (as Joe says, and I also have no reason not to.) he's dealing with the circumstances he has to deal with. (Which apparently aren't quite what you'd expect when you hear the term "Artic Circle" He's gets almost the same time I would in an outbuilding with no heat on Long Island.)
So maybe on the surface it sounds a bit far fetched, but does that make it impossible? People in Europe have been dealing with the obstacle of space (or lack of it) since the dawn of the hobby. I personally couldn't imagine trying to have a significant MRR in a house without a basement, or at least a nice garage, and there are plenty of them even where I live. I'm really not sure where I'm going with this...
But I would hate to see such a good thread go down in flames...
BTW Magnus, did he insult you in your own language? ("Svenska and Flicka")
Ssshhh Don. Your ruining it all. Ofcourse it's all a lie. I heard that this was a great place to pick up chicks, that was the reason I joined this forum. Someone else told me that question about code 83 or 100 was a sure way to get lucky.
Or, what are you on? Why would I lie about this? You started out somewhatd rude but now your outrigt insulting me since your in effect is calling me a liar. The fact that you seems to know very little facts also starts to me think on how serious you are. Since this topic is about tracks and you have strong opinions about I would have thought you had a clue of what Atlas track costs. It is nowhere near 1700$. Infact you are so off that I start to think that you don't even have a Mr, are you just here for the chicks to? Do you know what the amount of Atlas track that I descibed costs? It costs 695$ from first hobby. Almost a third that the expert Don claims.
Your knowledge of climate and lattitudes also leaves a lot to wish for. Up here the sun is up almost 24 hours a day during the summer. There is also a small thing called the Gulf stream up here and that gives us some nice weather. That makes it fairly nice to be in the garage/train room during that period. Last summer the garage was Ok to be in from May untill late October. That is enough for me for now. But since my plan is to ad on the house in abiout three years I like to keep costs down on materials that I can't move inside when that happens. That is why I have purchased a lot of rolling stock. I also like collecting stuff and enjoy just watching the engines and cars in my numerous display cabinets.
I'm also moving parts of the layout into my kids room. Some of the rolling stock is for them. But since your so ignorant don't bother.
So get your facts straight, stop being unpolite and stop showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge about things that you claim to have knowledge about. Accept that people might have difrent opinions then you and stop call people liars when YOU have NOTHING to suport your ridiculous claims.
In conclusion, if you don't believe me then wyh do you bother? Just stop writing insults to me and let the other suckers get yanked. I'm sure they feel dumb now after you exposed me. Helping a newbie might be ok but helping aliar. Poor fools.
Don Gibson wrote:"Lillen, you asked a legitemate queston. You got six pages of answers. No one has bashed you - except to ask a legitemate question". - Don Gibson LILLEN:Sorry, but after 5.5 pages I started to have some doubts (Scratch 6). Do I remember you having a a Garage, Shed, or unheated room for trains, somewhere near the Artic Circle?"The ...temperature difrences between -30 and +45 degrees celsius". I live in an area known for 'reasonably mild winters (45th parallel) but we only have less than 1O wks/yr.that I do not have to heat up my train room to work or operate. Perhaps the thought of an unheated train room one could visit maybe 5 weeks a year - problematical - and prohibitive for any sizable cash outlay. It doesn't make sense. and if it doesn't make sense, it raises some doubts - (because it doesn't make sense). Your recent "purchase" of 122 cars, and $1700 of track - not withstanding. Lillen, perhaps I'm the only one here, that feels you're 'yanking' our collective chains, but I do. I'm sorry.Re:"Walking the walk or talking the talk" you asked if this "was a question?" - No."Don I thought you gave up? " cwn3 I shall. I shall .
"Lillen, you asked a legitemate queston. You got six pages of answers. No one has bashed you - except to ask a legitemate question". - Don Gibson
LILLEN:
Sorry, but after 5.5 pages I started to have some doubts (Scratch 6). Do I remember you having a a Garage, Shed, or unheated room for trains, somewhere near the Artic Circle?
"The ...temperature difrences between -30 and +45 degrees celsius".
I live in an area known for 'reasonably mild winters (45th parallel) but we only have less than 1O wks/yr.that I do not have to heat up my train room to work or operate.
Perhaps the thought of an unheated train room one could visit maybe 5 weeks a year - problematical - and prohibitive for any sizable cash outlay.
It doesn't make sense. and if it doesn't make sense, it raises some doubts - (because it doesn't make sense). Your recent "purchase" of 122 cars, and $1700 of track - not withstanding.
Lillen, perhaps I'm the only one here, that feels you're 'yanking' our collective chains, but I do. I'm sorry.
Re:"Walking the walk or talking the talk" you asked if this "was a question?" - No.
"Don I thought you gave up? " cwn3
Don,
My chain has not been yanked by Magnus, but I do see where you are yanking his. Please, can we accept Magnus at his word? I certainly do.
Joe
I have made my track plan old style only. I.e pen and paper. But since my layout is based mosly around looking at the trains running and some moderate switching only the layout plan is pretty simple. I will se if I can scan it. But I have given more space to each turnout then will be required. Most of the turnouts will be on the industry parts of the layout and the yard.
I would describe the layout as basically three loops that will give the aperance that the train leaves the layout and then returns again. I decided on the run around due to the fact that I don't want two turntables at the moment. I will still operate as point to point but it will go around the layout in the proccess. It's also because I want my kids to be able to have fun with it and somehow I don't think they would enjoy a true point to point. The mainline will be 45 meters and the room it self is 3*5 metres. I have already built parts of it with #4's and #6's turnout where it needed to be a bit tighter and only shorter hoppers will operate.
Since this is my second attempt I'm also a bit realistic. I have accepted the fact that I will be forced to modify the layout as I go if something doesn't work. Thats also the reason that I have kept my layout plan very simple. I think it's easier to ad then to reduce the plan if I find something I want to try. I also view this entire layout as an experiment so handlaying is not in the cards at this moment. But, Crandells tip about the jig is tempting and I will perhaps order one and try I out if only to have something to do during winther.
You go Magnus!
Don I thought you gave up?
Magnus, I assume since you've ordered track that you have a firm plan. Why don't you post it, Don might like to rag on that some too...
Seriously though, those #8's do take up quite a bit of room. I hope you worked your plan out in CAD.
BTW, Good choice & a nice selection of equipment too!
P.S. Joe, are you apologizing on the part of all of America? (I don't recall you being offensive.)
Hi Joe,
You have nothing to apolagize about! I think your posts were great and you were a very good represntetive for "your" side. As I said, had there been c100 #8's I would have gone for them. It would be great fun to meet some people fromt his forum one day. There is a lot of really terrific people here who have my greatest respect. About my English, I read and understand english fluently. I mostly read english literature and I read about a book every three days. When I write there is more problems. I think the internet actually damages my written english more then helps. Some of the other forums have a LOT of really bad spelling and that rubs off. This forum on the other hand have some excellent languague so I hope that will help.
I will get some pictures soon. Right now I can not get in to my train room because the snow is actuall y blocking the door so high that I can not get in there. But spring have arrived and soon I will get in there. Right now there isn't much to look at. But I will put up some pics as soon as I can. This year I'm going to redo my entire layout and move parts of my old one in to my kids bedroom. It is the part with finished terrain that the kids will get. My son loves trains.
Lillen wrote:So once again. Thanks for the help everyone. Both sides had good arguments and presented there cases well. it was #8 that did it. Otherwise I think the code 100 people had a stronger case. But that is just me.Magnus
So once again. Thanks for the help everyone. Both sides had good arguments and presented there cases well. it was #8 that did it. Otherwise I think the code 100 people had a stronger case. But that is just me.
Magnus,
Your English is quite good, and your comprehension and understanding of it is even better. Regarding the bashing and insluts that were hurled your way, it is regretful that we do not chose our words more carefullly. I'll not offer excuse for our collective behaviour, but be assured, you have my apology.
Perhaps one day we'll have the opportunity to meet face to face and enjoy a good chat.
Do, please stay engaged with the forum. With all sincerity, please do post some pictures where we can see your work.
Best regards.
Don Gibson wrote: Lillen, you asked a legitemate queston. You got six pages of answers. No one has bashed you - except to ask a legitemate question.
Lillen, you asked a legitemate queston. You got six pages of answers. No one has bashed you - except to ask a legitemate question.
Don Gibson wrote: Magnus: You are being too overcautious here - so much so, that you probably will do nothing. There will ALWAYS be something new, around the corner, to justify waiting. Your justification is called 'not making a mistake'.
Magnus: You are being too overcautious here - so much so, that you probably will do nothing. There will ALWAYS be something new, around the corner, to justify waiting. Your justification is called 'not making a mistake'.
Is this a question? I don't think so.
Don Gibson wrote: "probably... "if there'd have been...jig is sure tempting...I will think some more..." If this same inquiry, is posted a year from now, WHY will I not be surprised?Some people walk the walk. Some just talk the talk.
"probably... "if there'd have been...jig is sure tempting...I will think some more..." If this same inquiry, is posted a year from now, WHY will I not be surprised?
Some people walk the walk. Some just talk the talk.
Is this a question?
No, they are insults directed me. When you say "Some people walk the walk. Some just talk the talk. " and assume that I'm one of those your full of it. You know nothing about me. Or what you know is nowhere near enough to make that statement. What do you want from me? As soon as you said what you think I should do I should do it? I'm I not entitled to think about a decision for a few weeks before I decide? In my opinion one shall decide after having considered the options. Not because someone on a forum tells me to with childish remarks about walk the walk and so on. That might work upon the people you hang around, I don't know but I do NOT buy stuff for that reason. Pathetic.
Further more. You couldn't have been more wrong. I have already placed my order. I decided on c83 from Atlas. But that might just be because of you and your encouraging attitude......
And for the walk the walk. Here is a sample.... i.e not all of the stuff that I have ordered the last month. If that is not enough then I'm sorry Don, I guess I can't satesfy your walk and will continue to be all talk:
25 Heavyweights from Walthers
24 proto war emergency hoppers
72 Walthers ore cars
100 pieces of flextrack
40 turnouts
60 metres of WS roadbed
1 CMX clean machine
buildings and structures from walthers for about 500$
1 PCM Big Boy
1 PCM 2-8-8-2
1 BLI F7 AB
2 Proto 2k E8/9 AB
1 Bachmann 2-8-0
1 Bachmann 2-10-0
Plus some more stuff.
All the passenger cars are lit and all the engines have dcc and sound.
What else do you want me to order so that I can prove that I walk the walk?
LILLEN: You speak better English than I do Swedish. The only Swedish words I know are"Svenska" und "Flicka". I have more problems with your 'Fextrack'.
I'm 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? .... Is there a good reason besides looks to get c83? -Lillen
... and 5 1/2 pages of questions & answers later ...
(1) I'm leaning more and more towards C83 and Atlas #8 turnouts. And it's that combo which does it. ... "this is probably the one that will be the one for me. (2) If there had been c100 #8 turnouts I think C100 would have won. (3) Well I have still to put in my order so I guess I will think some more about this. (4) That fast track jig sure is tempting.
(The numbers are mine): (1) First off Magnus I agree with you. The Atlas code 83 #8 is the best Atlas switch - if for only the reason it's the only turnout they make that doesn't have a black frog.
ON30:
You may be right here. It becomes very tough making the call between a 9 and a 10. Besides the detail of the spikes & tie plates, there's also the size and spacing of the ties themselves, which contributes to the overall authentic appearance of the track. You must also take into account the free-flowing nature of handlaid track. I dunno... (I was also trying to be gracious to all those who put so much effort into their handlaid trackwork.)
In any case, the object of the post was more to identify the Atlas c100/83 "cost effective" camp from the more devout "spend whatever it takes" peoples, and whether the returns you get on you efforts are worth the input. (Be it time or money) Like I said, #7 gets my vote every time. I think it's the choice that achieves a reasonable level of accuracy, while not breaking the bank.
Hey don't get me wrong, there's definitely a difference. There are only 2 questions: Can you see it? And can you afford it? Also, I see no need to belittle those who are just starting out in the hobby, and/or simply cannot afford to pay twice as much (or more) for track. I think it best to encourage them, and advise them of how they can make the best choice they can afford. (Or make the best of what they have already chosen.)
If we go back to the beginning, this thread started in a somewhat different vein; "Is there a good reason besides looks to get c83?" And it's gone to a whole different level...
Code 100 vs Code 83: On the plus side, code 100 has .017 inches more rail to display your best weathering technique :-)
Seriously, for a first layout, to get yourself going and get some trains running in a reasonable time frame and for reasonable money, I'm really happy with my Atlas Code 83. I'm making good progress painting it. Then onto scenery (which I've never tried before). I'd like to create a compressed stonedust looking yard area. Then balasting, which I expect to be much more fun than painting (yuck!). I'll post some photos when I get there. I could live with code 100, but the code 83 is easy to find and not much more to money to buy. Try a few lengths of flex and a couple turnouts as an experiment - a test track of science!
Jim
cwn3:
Well, if you're going to use 'logic' here, I give up.
cwn3 wrote:OK, I'm going to apologize in advance, this ends in a rant...Nobull:You're referring to the "substitution radius" which more determines how a train as a whole negotiates the turnout. (Or how it will look going thru it.) As opposed to the actual limiting minimum radius. Also this # shows how much less important the frog # is when considered against the minimum radius of the rest of the layout. #4: 29" R#5: 44" R#6: 56" R#8: 110" RBTW, Is the Atlas c83 #4 Custom Line a #4-1/2, as the c100's are? If so, that probably makes it acceptable for all but crossovers, full-length pass equip & 86' modern freight. IOW, certainly acceptable for spurs.Don:Take it easy on him. He's trying to make the right choice and not have regrets halfway thru construction. After all the rebuttal of the c100 here he's probably gone off and studied a 1000 photo's of various MRR's! He's coming to realize the difference in appearance of c83 and how much more realistic it looks, especially when combined with #8 turnouts.Are you saying that just because the equipment used doesn't technically warrant #8's that you wouldn't use them if you could fit them, at least in up front locations? Sure you would, you'd probably handlay #10's.He's developing an eye for detail, GOOD. Better now than 10 months into construction...As for everyone jumping on Joe-Daddy:IMHO c100 when properly weathered and ballasted is surely passable. Is c83 more realistic? Of course it is. In most cases c70 is probably the preferred size rail to maintain scale to the prototype mainline, but that will really start tapping your wallet. (As will any track from ME, Shinohara, and Peco)There's something called the "law of diminishing returns" which I feel applies here. If I could relate it to stereo/home-theater equipment: Spend $100 on a surround sound receiver and you get a piece of crap. Lets call it a 1 on a scale of 1 -10. Spend $700 - $800 and you've achieved a vast improvement, high fidelity even, maybe a 7 or 8. Spend $3500 - $5000 and get a 9. Dump $10,000 (or more) on individual components to get your performance to a 10. Do you think that's worth it? I'll stay with lucky #7 every time. Most bang for the buck baby!To relate it to this thread: Atlas c100 would probably score about a 5 or 6, Atlas c83 a 7, with ME, Shinohara, etc. at an 8 or 9, and finally handlaid c70 a solid 10 out of 10.This hobby is filled with compromises. We're forced to make them at every turn. Why suddenly is nobody willing to accept them when it comes to the track?Does it take 2-3x the time (or more) to handlay, as opposed to installing pre-fab track? C'mon, lets be serious here.... BTW, how much are those Fast-Tracks jigs again??? The time and effort invested in handlaying is IMO worth plenty even if you don't want to put a dollar value on it. Also I think the man said it was his first layout, which will most likely be dismantled when he attains more room in the not so distant future. What exactly are the chances of salvaging hand laid track? ‘Cause it would surely make me want to cry to lose all that effort!Secondly if he attempts this and finds it beyond his skill level (or just gets frustrated by the apparent lack of progress) isn't he far more likely to throw in the towel on the whole hobby?Handlaying is an art, and its appearance and reliability are greatly appreciated and respected. But this is just not something that should be attempted by everyone. Did anyone see that thread about a certain member who had a friend that was, how shall I say this, a disaster waiting to happen? I've seen enough posts on this forum that would indicate it would be prudent not to give immediate encouragement for everyone to go for the gold right out of the gate. Actually I feel it's down right irresponsible...Sorry again about the long post, but I had to get that off my chest.P.S. You tell'em Magnus!
OK, I'm going to apologize in advance, this ends in a rant...
Nobull:
You're referring to the "substitution radius" which more determines how a train as a whole negotiates the turnout. (Or how it will look going thru it.) As opposed to the actual limiting minimum radius. Also this # shows how much less important the frog # is when considered against the minimum radius of the rest of the layout.
#4: 29" R
#5: 44" R
#6: 56" R
#8: 110" R
BTW, Is the Atlas c83 #4 Custom Line a #4-1/2, as the c100's are? If so, that probably makes it acceptable for all but crossovers, full-length pass equip & 86' modern freight. IOW, certainly acceptable for spurs.
Don:
Take it easy on him. He's trying to make the right choice and not have regrets halfway thru construction. After all the rebuttal of the c100 here he's probably gone off and studied a 1000 photo's of various MRR's! He's coming to realize the difference in appearance of c83 and how much more realistic it looks, especially when combined with #8 turnouts.
Are you saying that just because the equipment used doesn't technically warrant #8's that you wouldn't use them if you could fit them, at least in up front locations? Sure you would, you'd probably handlay #10's.
He's developing an eye for detail, GOOD. Better now than 10 months into construction...
As for everyone jumping on Joe-Daddy:
IMHO c100 when properly weathered and ballasted is surely passable. Is c83 more realistic? Of course it is. In most cases c70 is probably the preferred size rail to maintain scale to the prototype mainline, but that will really start tapping your wallet. (As will any track from ME, Shinohara, and Peco)
There's something called the "law of diminishing returns" which I feel applies here. If I could relate it to stereo/home-theater equipment: Spend $100 on a surround sound receiver and you get a piece of crap. Lets call it a 1 on a scale of 1 -10. Spend $700 - $800 and you've achieved a vast improvement, high fidelity even, maybe a 7 or 8. Spend $3500 - $5000 and get a 9. Dump $10,000 (or more) on individual components to get your performance to a 10. Do you think that's worth it? I'll stay with lucky #7 every time. Most bang for the buck baby!
To relate it to this thread: Atlas c100 would probably score about a 5 or 6, Atlas c83 a 7, with ME, Shinohara, etc. at an 8 or 9, and finally handlaid c70 a solid 10 out of 10.
This hobby is filled with compromises. We're forced to make them at every turn. Why suddenly is nobody willing to accept them when it comes to the track?
Does it take 2-3x the time (or more) to handlay, as opposed to installing pre-fab track? C'mon, lets be serious here.... BTW, how much are those Fast-Tracks jigs again??? The time and effort invested in handlaying is IMO worth plenty even if you don't want to put a dollar value on it.
Also I think the man said it was his first layout, which will most likely be dismantled when he attains more room in the not so distant future. What exactly are the chances of salvaging hand laid track? ‘Cause it would surely make me want to cry to lose all that effort!
Secondly if he attempts this and finds it beyond his skill level (or just gets frustrated by the apparent lack of progress) isn't he far more likely to throw in the towel on the whole hobby?
Handlaying is an art, and its appearance and reliability are greatly appreciated and respected. But this is just not something that should be attempted by everyone. Did anyone see that thread about a certain member who had a friend that was, how shall I say this, a disaster waiting to happen? I've seen enough posts on this forum that would indicate it would be prudent not to give immediate encouragement for everyone to go for the gold right out of the gate. Actually I feel it's down right irresponsible...
Sorry again about the long post, but I had to get that off my chest.
P.S. You tell'em Magnus!
In reference to the paragraph that rates the different styles of track, I think that once the rails and ties are weathered on code 83, 70, and even 55 ME and Shinohara track, they look much better than handlaid due to the scale-sized spikes and tie plates (I've used both methods in the past).
Thanks for the suport guys. It warms my heart. I find it kind of fun that I'm now being bashed for going more accurate from the very same person who bashed med for the oposite. Quite humorous. But I do think this entire thread shows a deeper problem. Often we read about the problems of recruiting more people to the hobby. These kind of responses hardly help someone to decide to invest 1000's $ into a new hobby. On the other side. The people on this thread wich have contributed with an open mind are also the exact kind of people that makes ME want to get involved.
I think it's sad that we, within this small comunity and who all share a common passion can not accept the difrences amongst us. We should welcome diversity and newcomers "naive" questions and try to help them. Just as many have done here. Crandalls generous offer is among the things that I will remember for a long time. It's also the attitude that I will tell people about when I discuss Americans and how they are. Generous, helping people that care about there fellow man.
So in conclusion, thanks EVERYONE for your positive input.
P.s Crandell, maybe I'm just to stupid to understand there goads and bullying!
I am impressed with Magnus's reserve and diplomacy when responding to his critics and goads. I have never felt that I was dealing with a naive or stupid man when I responded to his requests for assistance, but some replies here have almost seemed like bullying. To his credit, he responded with grace, equanimity, and with a resolve to stay true to his overarching plan while still looking for ways to make his dollar (kroner) fly a bit further.
Let us agree that Code 100 is about as bad a representation of scale track as three-rail tinplate is. It really looks decent when properly ballasted and painted up...only a knowledgeable and at the same time critical person would go to the extent of pointing out this pseudo-problem to a fellow modeller ...unless the question was invited with specific reference to looks.
Instead, Magnus has, several times, alluded to his isolation, the extremes of climate, and to the fact that he is not flush with cash due to his prime focus of continuing his post-grad education.
We should give him credit for knowing the differences in frog numbers, how many of each type he will need, and why.
Shock, Awe. . . . What Charlie said, YEA!, Ditto,
I think it ironic, the experts beat Magnus into submission, going for the most authenticly sized rail and turnout one can possibly push on a newbie, only to get slammed by the same for being too unreasonably obsessed with authenticity. Amazing.
As Charlie said so eloquently, this was my original point anyway! This thread should be bronzed, it is destined to be a classic!
Peace to those who seek it.
Joe Daddy hisself
Don the reason why I'm waiting is cash. Not decision. I don't want to pull money out funds so I'm waiting for the next payment coming in. If I should change my mind during this wait I will order something else bu as it stands it's c83. I like #8's because of how they look. I also run a majority of Walthers heavyweights on my layout and I think it looks better with #8 then #6. Have nothing to do with insecurity. To wait for a few weeks before placing an order that will take between 6-12 weeks minimum to arrive and cost me 2000$ is not insecurity. In my world I don't think it's wrong to contemplate what to buy before I place the order, I think it's smart. I'm going to have to live with my choise of track for the next few years. What does a couple of weeks mean then? Also I'm checking out deals on Peco track over here in Sweden and I still haven't recived all the stores prices yet.
I know they all work. That is not the point! Most things work. Are you telling me there is no difrence. Checking stuff up on how diffrent things are is not a bad thing and doesn't mean I assume that only one brand will work. I just like doing research.
About room sizes. My layout is planned at this stage. It will use the largest curves possible. Do you know why. (Are your ready?) Because even though 24" will work 36" will look better. Wich is the reason why I have decided on #8.
"Magnus: You are being too overcautious here - so much so, that you probably will do nothing. There will ALWAYS be something new, around the corner, to justify waiting. Your justification is called 'not making a mistake'. "
You know nothing about me or my personel life. I have spent rougly 4000$ the last month so I do not believe I don't do nothing and just wait. I just do things in a certain order. Why do I order my track last. Because I live near the polarcircle and the temperature in my trainroom is the same as the outdoor enviroment. I do not want to lay track in minus 20 degrees celsius. But hey. If I wasn't so insecure I might be able to warm my hands with a bit of selfconfidence?
"SIMPLY PUT it's Performance and Appearance VS. Cost. What's your priorities?"
No there is one more thing. I live in Sweden. Certain things are not available loccaly for me as it is for you. So AVAILABILITY is also a issue.
My mistake (I was writing from memory); Paul is right. There is a point in a turnout (which, properly laid, consists of both curved and straight sections) where the radius constricts to the permissible radius. If the turnout is laid to NMRA specifications, it will have this radius; however, many commercial turnouts have variations in them, so this minimum number can be a little higher or lower.
My memory does tell me that the average radius of a number-eight is north of 100 inches, but that counts the straight sections as well.
Lillen wrote: I'm leaning more and more towards C83 and Atlas #8 turnouts. And it's that combo wich does it. ... If there had been c100 #8 turnouts I think C100 would have won. ... Well I have still to put in my order so I guess I will think some more about this. That fast track jig sure is tempting. - Magnus
I'm leaning more and more towards C83 and Atlas #8 turnouts. And it's that combo wich does it. ... If there had been c100 #8 turnouts I think C100 would have won. ... Well I have still to put in my order so I guess I will think some more about this. That fast track jig sure is tempting. - Magnus
Example: "I'm leaning more and more towards C83 and Atlas #8 turnouts": What piece of equipment have you ever owned that required a #8 turnout?
I've had one - a 4-6-6-2 $1600 brass Mallet - and everything else went through #6s. Are you planning on buying one?
Meanwhile prices go up - like Petroleum.
Far more important is: (1) the size of your ROOM, which determines the size of your layout; (2) The RADIUS of your curves determines the type of equipment you can run; and (3) the method of CONTROL determines the electrical & mechanical characteristics (Block control or DCC) for running.
Less inportant are brands and codes because (are you ready?) they ALL work. (Look at all the divirgent opinions). 'Does DCC do more than DC? (Yes) - and it costs more.
SIMPLY PUT it's Performance and Appearance VS. Cost. What's your priorities?
Shall we guess?
nobull,Another reason to use Shinohara No. 8's is that, back 10 years ago, they did not short out when using DCC because the angle was much less than a No. 6. Now with "DCC Friendly" switches from Shinohara, that's not such a big deal. But my club tested many kinds of equipment over all Shinohara switches, and only the No. 8's did not short with big, rigid steam engines or electrics.
BTW, about the internal radius of switches, the NMRA calls it like this (part 11 of the diagram):
http://www.nmra.com/standards/rp12_3.html
No. 4 - 15"No. 5 - 26"No. 6 - 43"No. 8 - 67"No. 10 - 117"
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
FYI: There are #8 turnouts in C100 made by Shinohara -- I own several of them, and reliability is excellent, especially after one champfers the points. I don't know if they still are made, but it might be possible to find a supply on eBay.
Now the $64,000 question: Aside from passenger-track crossovers, what do you need #8s for? Unless you are running 86-foot, hi-cube boxcars, that may be overkill and a great space waster.
The radius of a number-six turnout is on the order of 40 inches; a number-five is about 28 inches. Number-eights are up around 108 inches. For comparison, my minimum mainline radius is 42 inches, and I have two U.P. Nines (4-12-2s). There wasn't an engine on the B&O which, in HO, wouldn't make it round a 40-inch radius curve. The only thing wrong with a number-six is that it has too much of an s-curve in it for full-length passenger cars, so you do need 8s for crossovers. And for looks. But, if looks are that important, why are we having this discussion?
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
I'm leaning more and more towards C83 and Atlas #8 turnouts. And it's taht combo wich does it. Both sides have presented good arguments for there case but this is propably the one that will be the one for me. If there had been c100 #8 turnouts I think C100 would have won. Well I have still to put in my order so I guess I will think some more about this. That fast track jig sure is tempting.
nobullchitbids wrote: When you go to MR for the Work article, also pick up "Can Derailments Be Banished -- Forever?" from the July 1963 issue. And (if you are exploring using scale wheels) make sure you get ahold of the pioneering articles by Paul Dolkos concerning changes which need to be made in the track standards.
When you go to MR for the Work article, also pick up "Can Derailments Be Banished -- Forever?" from the July 1963 issue. And (if you are exploring using scale wheels) make sure you get ahold of the pioneering articles by Paul Dolkos concerning changes which need to be made in the track standards.
Don't know about the July 1963 article but that rang a bell. I'm suprised my memory was this good. Also see:
http://kalmbachcatalog.stores.yahoo.net/mrr020201.html
"Banish derailments forever. Senior editor Jim Hediger, explains a dozen easy tune-up tricks he uses to obtain top performance on his well-known HO scale Ohio Southern. "
And in my opinion, the appearance advantage of Atlas Code 83 (vs 100) is completely worth any of its' potential disadvantages. It's what I use. To me it's the cross-section of the 100 that's objectionable, more than the height. The head is too tall and out of proportion to the web.
Joe-daddy
Actually, hand-laying turnouts does NOT require craftsman-like skills. I've never been able to do precision work with my hands first shot. My first attempt at assembling a Silver Streak plastic reefer kit (one step above Athearn BB at the time) was pitiful. I'm still scared to take an airbrush to paint or weather a car or engine.
So I was scared when I tried my first handlaid turnout. All I had was some code 70 rail, ties, spikes, needle nose pliers, a 40 watt soldering iron, solder, a couple of small files, a hacksaw blade, a couple of 3 point gauges, an NMRA gauge, a piece of PC board for the throw "tie", and Jack Work's article on how to lay a turnout in the April '63 MR. But I realized as I got going that the worst that could happen was that I would have to rip out some rail and ties, and replace it with a commercial turnout. Your first handlaid turnout will likely run better than any commercial turnouts out of the box - mine did. The difference is the later ones will look prettier than the 1st effort.
Like others, and as in the article, I simply filled the flangeways and frog with solder and sawed it out right to spec with the hacksaw blade (perfect for HO).
Using the Fast Tracks jigs is even more of a guarantee of success the first time.
Handlaid track isn't for everybody. Handlaying track is soothing for me; for others it is frustrating. You do need patience to stay at it until it is right. In my case, I've had to replace a couple of ties (incredibly, none in turnouts) because there wasn't enough solid wood left to spike into due to repeated adjustments. But this is the care you should take for laying any track. This is why I don't have derailments, and hastily laid commercial track does.
The point of all these words is that almost all model railroaders have sufficient skill to hand lay track if they want to. Give it a whirl on an upfront spur where smaller rail and wood ties would look really nice. Try a custom turnout where it will help your track flow a lot smoother than the limited geometry of commercial turnouts allow. Then you will know if you want to hand lay more track, and you will know you can do it, too.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
HAND LAYING SWITCHES is for those who want to spend the time to get better results.
For them, the REWARDS are worth the EFFORT. Not so for those in a hurry or want to do other things with their time.
I've made turnouts from a jig , installed kits using an NMRA gage, and also used different prefab products - when they work - (My criteria is 'what does the job').
When a hand laid swich is spiked, one scarcely hears the wheels 'click'. Prefab switches cannot maintain these tolerances - and still be profitable. Metal has a memory that ignores plastic moulds.
Correctly spaced 'wing' rails allow the wheels to smoothly traverse a flangeway gap without bouncing, while some Atlas owners file down the frog because it appears "too high".
A correctly spaced. wing rail, flangeway, and guard rail, for RP-25 wheels will reject out of gauge wheels, as will Proto 88 flangeways reject RP-25 flanges. Who's at fault?
Easier to loosen the specs and prevent returns from unhappy customers. It's called "Volume".
I use a miniature gas torch when possible, which is all instances where I won't incinerate the ties. In those cases, I use a gun-style or pencil iron, depending upon amount of heat needed. I puddle silver-solder lakes into my frogs and guard rails, then cut in the wheel paths (why one needs the moto-tool/cutting disk, plus a knife file). Make certain you have eye protection with the cutting disk (they do shatter!).
You know, in all this shouting about what is "scratchbuilt," &c., there is another possibility, although it won't save any money: One could take a quality commercial turnout, e.g., Shinohara or Walthers (Shinohara code 83), and simply remove the points, then replace them with insulated joiners and new points made per the Work method. If cost is not an issue, I should think this a reasonable alternative to get the closer-to-prototype look of the real McCoy. It should not take a lot of extra time.
joe-daddy wrote:Do you guys use a resistance soldering machine?
No, just a pencil iron from Radio Shack.
nobullchitbids wrote:Thanks for the observations, fwright, because there certainly is some truth to them, but please let us compare apples and apples. Whether RTR or handlaid -- or "kitbuilt" for those who prefer joedaddy's terminology --
Thanks for the observations, fwright, because there certainly is some truth to them, but please let us compare apples and apples. Whether RTR or handlaid -- or "kitbuilt" for those who prefer joedaddy's terminology --
Apples to apples? No more like Apples to eggs. 1-2 hours but no ties or spiking? So, it only takes an expert about 3 hours to get a hand laid turnout ready to lay? If I could build my first one without any assistance from anyone in a day, and have it work properly, I'd be amazed. And no cracks about ability either. Things like this take time to master.
Do you guys use a resistance soldering machine? I'll guess most do to get the clean, precise joints necessary. Was the cost of that tool in the estimate? Probably not, that eats about half or more of the $300 savings.
Guys, hand laying track is an art, I have nothing but the highest respect for those who have the time, skill and patience to pursue. But I am reminded of something Brunton mentioned recently, about avoiding electronic complexity on his layout. While, he may be comfortable building his own track, I am not, but I cannot get enough electronic complexity. I'll spend my time there, thank you.
Thanks for the insight into hand laying, maybe after I retire, and have my layout working, I'll look into it.
Thanks for the observations, fwright, because there certainly is some truth to them, but please let us compare apples and apples. Whether RTR or handlaid -- or "kitbuilt" for those who prefer joedaddy's terminology -- we all have to cut in the switch machine or ground throw or fishline hooked to a ping pong ball or whatever we use. We all have to adjust linkage, ballast and weather the rails, attach the signalling circuits if used, &c., &c.
But, Magnus' question as I understood it was what kind of time increase was he looking at were he to handlay v. install a commercial.
I do believe 1-2 hours is approximately correct, if one starts from a milled block, builds on site, and has use of a moto-tool and a cutting disk. And remember I specifically excluded final spiking time, since some will spike every tie, others (like me) every other, some every third, some every fourth. My one-two hour estimate is based solely on getting the rail onto the ties in initially usable condition with all of the parts in place and clearances proper. The only things in Mr. Wright's list on mine as well are attaching the feeder lines to the bottom of the rails and dropping them through benchwork holes. Since I am starting with virgin rail (no plastic ties), attaching feeders is quick and simple -- just solder the wire to the correct point on the bottom of a rail, then push it through the hole in the wood (not a time grabber).
Clearly, it will take longer to handlay individual ties onto a plain block, especially at a turnout because (recall) the length of the ties changes every third or fourth tie (you have to get them in the jig in the correct order). There are about 25 steps in the complete Work procedure, and common sense tells one he could not complete them all in an hour.
Midnight Railroader wrote: joe-daddy wrote: [Fellows, I can easily spend an hour getting some flex track installed properly, aligned and working right, especially incompatible code 83. Installing a RTR turnout is at least an hour job. You're right, you don't have enough time to handlay!
joe-daddy wrote: [Fellows, I can easily spend an hour getting some flex track installed properly, aligned and working right, especially incompatible code 83. Installing a RTR turnout is at least an hour job.
[Fellows, I can easily spend an hour getting some flex track installed properly, aligned and working right, especially incompatible code 83. Installing a RTR turnout is at least an hour job.
I think joe-daddy is pretty close to right on the mark if you are going to include everything. To me the list of tasks include removing the RTR turnout from packaging, checking with NMRA gauge and multimeter, fixing critical discrepancies, adding feeders for frog and/or points, placing turnout on layout, mounting switch machine under the layout, installing and adjusting the switch machine linkage, installing the turnout controls at the control panel(s), wiring the switch machine, wiring frog feeder to switch machine contacts, and testing and tuning. If you accomplish all this in less than an hour (I'd probably take a good 2 hours), then my hat is off to you! Notice we still haven't weathered the rail and ballasted. And we assumed the roadbed was already in place and sanded.
For the same reason, I don't believe those who say they hand lay a turnout in an hour. You may physically construct the turnout at the bench in an hour, with it ready to place on the layout, but you still have all the installation tasks associated with an RTR still to perform.
From bare Homasote to completed, ballasted, weathered, wired turnout handlaid in place on my layout (no jigs), was about 6 hours (usually 3 evenings of about 2 hours each). I could probably improve on that now by using Tortoise instead of hand-made manual throws with slide switches, and by practice, but I don't think I would ever get under 5 hours.
Although joe-daddy's times are closer to the truth, the point that handlaid track is not all that much more time-consuming than flex track and RTR turnouts when all tasks are considered is valid. That is because the actual spiking and shaping of rail is not that big a proportion of the total effort involved to get smooth-running, completed track. My best guess from the above is that handlaid track takes perhaps twice as long as flex and RTR turnouts when the big picture is considered.
just my thoughts
Guys,Both HO clubs I am a member of uses Atlas C100 track and switches..We painted the rail and then ballast the track and it looks smaller to the eye..I use Atlas C83track and switches on my industrial switching layouts..Know what? Both works equally well and looks good.
Its your choice and your call.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Brunton wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: joe-daddy wrote: Spending a year or two building 40 turnouts is not my idea of saving money and enjoying my hobby. How does a max of two hours per turnout add up to a year?Doesn't spend much time model rairoading?
Midnight Railroader wrote: joe-daddy wrote: Spending a year or two building 40 turnouts is not my idea of saving money and enjoying my hobby. How does a max of two hours per turnout add up to a year?
joe-daddy wrote: Spending a year or two building 40 turnouts is not my idea of saving money and enjoying my hobby.
OK, I'll byte! Fellows, I can easily spend an hour getting some flex track installed properly, aligned and working right, especially incompatible code 83. Installing a RTR turnout is at least an hour job.
And, you guys are missing the point as well. IF you use a store bought jig, ties, rails, nails and pre-milled roadbed are you really scratch building? No, you are just building a kit. Real scratch builders use a spoke shave and a fir log and have a forge.
My pointy head is tired and we are talking past each other anyway.
Build your kits if you so desire, I'll run RTR whenever I can afford it. I am out of discretionary time.
Peace to all of you.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Magnus, your first turnout will take you close to two hours. They get faster, and finally, at some point, you will be able to make your own without the laying jig, although the points jig is still going to be useful.
I can make a turnout now between one hour and 90 minutes, depending on distractions, how organized I am at the outset, and so on.
To be clear about your costs over purchasing commercial turnouts:
a. your initial purchase, whatever the cost is for the kit as of today, will permit you to make six turnouts....if you have the soldering equipment and plain rail stock...a plastic sheaf with perhaps 50 90 cm rail lengths in it. You won't get any rail or soldering equipment, although I believe Tim Warris will provide it for a fee.
b. Your first turnout may or may not be a keeper. If not, then you now have five, not six.
c. When you have consumed the material that you get with the kit (some fine solder, a bag of PCB ties, and six laser cut tie blocks), you will have to purchase more. Don't forget that you still need the rails, although you will have that by the time you have made your 5 or 6 useful turnouts. If you don't mind cutting your own ties out of stripwood, then you can save a few dollars, not a huge amount. Time will begin to become a factor for you perhaps.
d. I don't know what kind of a deal you can get purchasing 40 some-odd turnouts from a commercial supplier, but I'm guessing they will end up costing you close to US$15 each, perhaps more, by the time buddy knocks on your door for delivery, or if you have to go pick the parcel up at a depot or post office. If you have customs on top of any shipping costs, then you figure it out and add that to the turnout purchase price. Are we nearer to $17 now? So, @$17/turnout, 40 turnouts comes to USD$680. Sorry, I forgot the exclamation mark...here it is...!
e. back on Earth, your jigs and bundle of 50 rails, a new soldering iron, and a jeweller's saw complete with a small bag with 12 filamental cutting blades (a must have, don't even think of using anything else!) will set you back close to USD$400, give or take $40.
I don't believe I have forgotten anything momentous, so you now have a fair idea of what is in store for you in either case. You can order and have them there in three weeks, or you can have nearly half of them built in the same length of time if you spend six hours each weekend building them.
It is very much a personal choice, clearly, but for me, I wanted to know how a turnout can be made, how they work, and I wanted to handlay my own at some point. When the need arose, I was quite confident that I knew how to map out the curves, measure, cut, file, shape, solder, and then gap where needed. Both of my personally designed turnouts are in use this very night as I type this.
If I could make a suggestion...? Buy a few commercial ones, decent ones like Peco Code 83 or Walthers/shinohara or Micro-Engineering (no website, you have to call or email) so that you can have a break now and then and play with a small portion of your layout sooner than later. In the meantime, learn how to make them, and use these superior turnouts as you are able to provide them.
-Crandell
nobullchitbids wrote:Joe,If you are using a milled block, you don't have to lay the ties because they are already there. And milled or plain, the blocks cost the same -- $1-$2 each.But for those who want to lay ties quickly and evenly, with only slight variations to prove they are handlaid:Get one of the milled blocks -- straight, curved, turnout, crossover, whatever -- and slide the appropriate length of tie between the millings. I use Campbell profile ties but I suspect one could use full-dimensioned ones as well. Now, take a strip of masking tape and press it along the length of the strip of "jigged" ties and carefully pull the masking tape up. The majority of the ties will stick to the tape, and the tape then is transferred to a plain block coated in the right areas with white or carpenter's glue. Insert the remainder of the ties (those that fell off the tape) by hand. Make a sanding boat 18-24 inches long, like the Work article suggests, and sand the ties after they've dried, which previously were stained by soaking them in all that paint thinner used to clean the brushes with (but use your head re color). Restain with the rest of the thinner. Zip, zip, zip, and you should be done.Was that really that hard?
Joe,
If you are using a milled block, you don't have to lay the ties because they are already there. And milled or plain, the blocks cost the same -- $1-$2 each.
But for those who want to lay ties quickly and evenly, with only slight variations to prove they are handlaid:
Get one of the milled blocks -- straight, curved, turnout, crossover, whatever -- and slide the appropriate length of tie between the millings. I use Campbell profile ties but I suspect one could use full-dimensioned ones as well. Now, take a strip of masking tape and press it along the length of the strip of "jigged" ties and carefully pull the masking tape up. The majority of the ties will stick to the tape, and the tape then is transferred to a plain block coated in the right areas with white or carpenter's glue. Insert the remainder of the ties (those that fell off the tape) by hand. Make a sanding boat 18-24 inches long, like the Work article suggests, and sand the ties after they've dried, which previously were stained by soaking them in all that paint thinner used to clean the brushes with (but use your head re color). Restain with the rest of the thinner. Zip, zip, zip, and you should be done.
Was that really that hard?
You are not missing the point, sir,you are ignoring it.
nobullchitbids wrote:Misses the point, Joe:The issue on the table was whether to spend extra money to get rail more to scale than what traditionally has been used. At some point, Lillian, the original requester, mentioned that the model railroad in question would have 40 turnouts.You do the math: 40 turnouts times $12 (minimum) per commercial turnout comes to $480, against about $80 for those who roll their own. There would have to be a lot of rail on Lillian's railroad to save $400 prefering code 83 to code 100, no matter what the difference in price. Compared to what one would pay for the scale-sized rail, learning to roll one's own turnouts saves money big time. And having been a student once (in a galaxy far, far away), I know how important that is in such times.
Misses the point, Joe:
The issue on the table was whether to spend extra money to get rail more to scale than what traditionally has been used. At some point, Lillian, the original requester, mentioned that the model railroad in question would have 40 turnouts.
You do the math: 40 turnouts times $12 (minimum) per commercial turnout comes to $480, against about $80 for those who roll their own. There would have to be a lot of rail on Lillian's railroad to save $400 prefering code 83 to code 100, no matter what the difference in price. Compared to what one would pay for the scale-sized rail, learning to roll one's own turnouts saves money big time. And having been a student once (in a galaxy far, far away), I know how important that is in such times.
No, Nobullchitbids, I didn't miss the point. One crawls, stumbles, walks then runs. Building turnouts is running by any strech of the imagination.
So far as saving money, no, I don't think so, time is money to me. Spending a year or two building 40 turnouts is not my idea of saving money and enjoying my hobby. There is just too much to do to waste my valuable time building turnouts that for all I know will be more temperamental and less reliable than the ones I can by for 12 bucks.
Jig or no jig, getting the ties even and flat is no trivial chore from what I've read. If I am going to build a turnout,why cheat and use premilled road bed? You should be using rough sawn pine and smooth it out with a block plane. Makes as much sense as your opposition to buying a turnout. Surely you forge your own rails and nails, right! Then there is the issue of using a jig, why? Use blue prints like the railroad does, the jig takes the fun out of it.
Your logic is flawed from my perspective.
Sorry about the name screw up -- I was wondering why "Lillian" kept sounding like a guy!
Re the turnout jigs, I build my turnouts on site, so I don't use them and have no opinion of them.
I do use TruScale "roadbed" (it's actually ballast board), either plain or milled, which no longer is made but which can be obtained on eBay from other modelers and new old-stock from defunct hobby shops. How long it takes me to do one depends on whether I lay my own ties, since doing that requires one take several of Work's recommended steps, e.g., sanding the tops of the ties and restaining to insure everything is flat. Laying one's own ties looks better, but using a milled block saves steps and time. You don't have to sand the tops of those -- they're already flat.
Also, time taken depends on what I am trying to do. For example, if I am laying a yard ladder, I will take the two lead stock rails and roughly spike them in place at the ends, then determine where I have to file away the webs to locate the points. The ladders usually are not gapped until after the turnout, so I can make the continuation of the stock rails from single lengths of 3-ft sections of rail. If I do a string of turnouts on milled blocks, I would say that it takes about an hour to hour and a half per turnout exclusive of final spiking time. I say exclusive of that because I do not know how meticulous you intend to be in that department -- obviously it takes twice as long to spike every tie as it does to spike every other, and half again as long to spike every four. I spike every other tie, and that has been sufficient to avoid temperature kinks.
When I am laying on milled block, I do take some shortcuts with the Work method. For example, I will lay the straight leg first, then cut the gap for the frog with a moto-tool and cutting disk, taking out the rail only to the web. I then form fit the diverging rail to form the frog -- it does not have to be perfect since I ultimately fill the frog with silver solder and cut or file the actual wheel paths with the moto-tool and a knife file. Some do's and don't's:
Do wear safety glasses or some protective eyewear when spiking! I once drove a spike into a hidden knot; it bounced out so violently that it drove itself into my cheekbone, and hard enough to bend the point. Bled like a stuck pig -- not what one would want to have happen to his eye.
Do not be too aggressive when driving spikes, especially in lighter rail. One thing about rail strength said previously definitely is true: Driving the spikes too hard against the lighter rail sections can bend them in slight "v's," causing all sorts of tracking problems which are hard to spot. Buy a machinist's square and use it to make sure the rail goes in level.
Do not bend the ends of the wing or guard rails too far or too much, and make certain they all line up in terms of placement -- this makes for a professional-looking installation.
Do use your NMRA gauge liberally and often! It is a lot easier to catch an error early and correct it than have to go back later, after the ties are marred with a godzillion spikes. And there is a tendency when spiking rail, when spiking one side first, to push the rail in that direction, making the gauge either to narrow or too wide.
Do not use the NMRA gauge for guard-rail width if you are using the newer, semi-scale wheels. It is too wide. Look up the seminal articles on scale wheels (Paul Dolkos in MR) and obtain the correct width, then make a gauge of your own with brass or steel and a Vernier caliper.
Do isolate the points from the wing rails with insulated rail joiners. You don't need those temperature extremes you mentioned closing the gaps and causing a difficult-to-find short.
I use Kemtron machines for mainline turnouts because of their host of contacts useful for signaling. Do use the main contacts for routing power to the wing rails, and to assure power to the points, drop wires from each and connect to the stock rails.
Do consider using pc ties (made from strips of electrical pc board) to make the point assembly, with appropriate slices to keep each point electrically separated. I find that, for lightly used turnouts, I can solder the rails directly to the ties, but for heavily trafficked areas, install wing tabs and use a rivet-type fastening to install some "give" into the connection.
Do consider using Anderson turnout links (or making your own based upon the Anderson design). These save a lot of set up time when attaching the switch machine.
Before investing a lot of money in jigs, do try to lay a couple of turnouts using NMRA templates. These can be had for free from older modeling magazines or for membership dues in the NMRA. And recall: You are trying to save money!
And finally, remember: Craftsmanship, shaftsmanship, you never know if you can do anything unless you try. Don't ever be intimidated by want of experience -- it is only a train!
I have been thinking about doing my own turnouts ever since Crandall showed me that wonderfull tool that he uses. So I might look into that the next time I order. How long time does it take to construct one turnout? Not that Iäm in a hurry but it would be good to know a rough guidline once you get into serial production so to speak.
And one more thing Nobullchitbids, my screen name is Lillen or you may call me Magnus wich is my real name. Lillian is a womans name here in Sweden so I chuckle every time you right it. I just thought I better tell you before someone asks for my phonenumber!
Cheers Magnus
challenger3980 wrote: [welcome]Hi Don, Do You happen to be a member of the Columbia Gorge Model Railroad Club in Portland? If so, We have missed You, and I am HAPPY to see that You are still enjoying the Hobby any way that You can. I Hope that Life treats You Better. Your Friend, challenger3980 Doug O'Grady CGMRC mem# 101
Do You happen to be a member of the Columbia Gorge Model Railroad Club in Portland? If so, We have missed You, and I am HAPPY to see that You are still enjoying the Hobby any way that You can. I Hope that Life treats You Better.
Your Friend,
challenger3980
Doug O'Grady
CGMRC mem# 101
Guilty, as charged. Still recovering from a stroke. Regards to all, and stay vertical. (CGMRC #138)
Furthermore, by using Jack Work's method, the result is much more realistic, since his turnouts do not suffer from the universal commercial flaw I mentioned, so the points can be realistically placed.
But, to get more to the point of the observation I made: Yes, you are absolutely correct that craftsmen are made, but that is the point I would make. In some ways, MR is bigger and better than ever; however, in one area the magazine really has fallen down, and that is that craftsmanship no longer is anywhere near as highly emphasized as it once was -- the printed leader of the hobby is not helping to make those craftsmen, perhaps because it is so much easier to rely on the craftsmen in China and, in the process, plug the advertisers who are paying the lion's share of MR's freight bill. Splicing rail together really is elementary. Champfering switch points so that they nest in the stock rail is elementary. Running leaders to all rails and not relying on rail joints is elementary. Gauging guard rails correctly for the wheels one uses is elementary. Yet my impression is that many who posted here are unaware of these techniques. They expect everything to work "out of the box."
I do not think the reason for this is because they want to be slovenly workmen. I think the reason is that we don't have the leadership in the "craftsman" departments and spend too much of our emphasis these days on "model train running." That, in a word, is wrong. Model railroading is the world's greatest hobby precisely because it pushes those involved in it to excel in so many different things, and no matter how good any one of us is in any one of them, inevitably there will be areas where we lag behind. There are many areas in model railroading where I would have to say I am not a craftsman. But, that does not make me forget that the first half of "model railroading" is "model" -- operation is important, but it only is half of the hobby.
And, like you said, Joe: Craftsmen are made -- made by someone. Like Jack Work. When we don't publish that kind of material, "for want of interest," who is hurt?
Special to Lillian: I took a look at my B&O history like I promised. There was no specific mention of rail size in it, but from the photographs, if anything, I would say that even code 83 is too large for much of the steam-era trackage. Code 70 Shinohara or code 75 Peco probably is much closer to what I saw depicted.
Of course it is possible in areas not depicted that B&O used heavier rail.
As for the suggestion you look into an Akane EM-1, depending on the model, Akanes can be either joys or heartbreakers. I have no immediate familiarity with the EM-1; however, I do know that throwing away the Akane motors is probably the first thing modelers do to them today. Since the engines all were made in the 1960s, the next thing modelers do is strip all the turnings and castings and replace them with modern specimens. Finally, almost all of the Japanese models from that era used wire sizes too large for the applications, so to really do the job right, you have to redo the piping.
This will take you about one to two months of solid work per engine for the reconditioning. Your best friends? A miniature gas torch, silver-bearing solder, a good paste flux (goes where you want it and stays there), plus a "twill" drilling chuck (for hand-drilling holes with very small drills -- buy two sets of drill bits, for the Sunday when you break one and the hobby shop is closed). These twill chucks are actually designed to be used in a drill press but are just as good in place of a pin vise (except that they will put good blisters and callouses on your fingers). For the larger drill bits, use an Indian twist drill. And flake the solder so you don't apply too much of it.
It is hard to clamp one of these old models and keep it steady in one position without damaging it, so power drilling is difficult. But, I do all right by hand with a portable vise and a ten-power glass for the really close work, and there is nothing quite like building (or rebuilding) your own steam locomotive.
If you think you might be interested in such work, older MRs have a lot of information in them on this:
Gordon Odegaard's articles on building a Mikado in brass (Oct. '82-Nov. '83);
A series of articles on superdetailing Big Boys and Challengers (late 1962 to early 1963);
Any of the earlier articles by Mel Thornburgh, some going back to the early '40s.
And I guarantee you that rebuilding an Akane will give you a better EM-1 model than reworking a Big Boy.
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
... and I soldered a short loop (2 inches) of 30 gauge stranded wire between each point and it's stock rail.
Not depending on points to receive power by metal/metal contact is smart - and recommended proceedure for 'Power routing' turnouts via the frog (and SPDT comtacts).
'Chamfering' the points to 'nudge' wheel flanges entering a turnout shows you're a 'pro' (and recommended for all prefabricated turnouts).
(Re turnouts?) I have yet to hook many of them to under-layout bus wires
When I put in my Atlas code 83 customline #4 turnouts, I prepped each turnout by slightly beveling the top, inside, and outside of each rail end where a joiner is used to attach the adjoining track piece. I also "sharpened" the points, and I soldered a short loop (2 inches) of 30 gauge stranded wire between each point and it's stock rail. The loop drops through a 3/8 inch hole below the track under each rail. It takes a little practice to get quick at it, but it should mean I will never have an electrical problem with the hinged joints. By the way, I have 20 gauge feeder to every piece of otherwise unsoldered track, includint each turnout. I solder the feeders to the bottom of the rails, and they stick down through holes in the board, but I have yet to hook many of them to under-layout bus wires. I have not yet regretted choosing Atlas. I use Caboose Industry ground throws to operate the switches.
For Joe Daddy....
Thanks for your comments on the Peco....I must confess that I have been leaning in that direction. If Atlas turnouts looked as good as the Walthers I think it would be a no brainer.
One thing: a local hobby shop guru told me that the Atlas code 83 turnouts need to have some type of soldering done where the round pins are located on the flat metal tabs that connect the swiveling rails to the stationary rails. He said these often fail and should be soldered prior to installing. Since you seem to have a substantial amount of experience with the code 83 Atlas, have you any comments?
Also, I am not familiar with the Wrabbit?? Any comments on the Walthers or Shinohara? I am still thinking code 100 may be the better bet for me....
And Joe "Daddy"...if I am the "son" (at age 63) I guess that makes you the OF of this forum! (I had to say that!) (in gest of course).
I look forward to picking your brain more!!
jobfather wrote:I have read this entire forum with interest but I am amazed how many are discussing their track preferences based on "flex track" and other construction related issues. What about turnouts?????I am beginning a new layout after many years of waiting and am in a total quandry trying to select a brand and code of turnout. If appearance and cost be the key issues there is a lot of code 83 that looks good....Peco, Walthers....but Atlas, the price leader, has turnouts that don't even look real and aren't even similar amongst size, ie, a #6 turnout and a #8 turnout have different frogs etc. And Atlas turnouts have long legs....and long term maintenance question marks. The Walthers 83 turnouts look good and have both a reasonable price point and selection but are nowhere to be had. And who knows when there will be more?? Their website says late April but.....???? Ditto the Shinohara if 100 is your choice. Peco has a nice selection of 100 but in 83 is seriously lacking and their new 83 is outrageously priced. For me, there is no "winner" amongst any of these brands "if" you are considering, appearance, reliability, cost and availability (and code too!).And ditto switch machines. The Tortoise seem to be the "operational" choice but are huge in size compared to others and difficult to place because of their size and they are costly as well. Atlas is again the price leader but their machines can only be used with their turnouts (above table) and don't have a long life expectancy (for under table). Peco are decent cost wise and size wise but may only work well with Peco turnouts. Ditto the Rix.Don't mean to muddy the waters but after 50+ years you would think "someone" out there would jump ahead of the others, especially in HO. For me selecting the turnouts will ultimately select the flex track.
I have read this entire forum with interest but I am amazed how many are discussing their track preferences based on "flex track" and other construction related issues. What about turnouts?????
I am beginning a new layout after many years of waiting and am in a total quandry trying to select a brand and code of turnout. If appearance and cost be the key issues there is a lot of code 83 that looks good....Peco, Walthers....but Atlas, the price leader, has turnouts that don't even look real and aren't even similar amongst size, ie, a #6 turnout and a #8 turnout have different frogs etc. And Atlas turnouts have long legs....and long term maintenance question marks. The Walthers 83 turnouts look good and have both a reasonable price point and selection but are nowhere to be had. And who knows when there will be more?? Their website says late April but.....???? Ditto the Shinohara if 100 is your choice. Peco has a nice selection of 100 but in 83 is seriously lacking and their new 83 is outrageously priced. For me, there is no "winner" amongst any of these brands "if" you are considering, appearance, reliability, cost and availability (and code too!).
And ditto switch machines. The Tortoise seem to be the "operational" choice but are huge in size compared to others and difficult to place because of their size and they are costly as well. Atlas is again the price leader but their machines can only be used with their turnouts (above table) and don't have a long life expectancy (for under table). Peco are decent cost wise and size wise but may only work well with Peco turnouts. Ditto the Rix.
Don't mean to muddy the waters but after 50+ years you would think "someone" out there would jump ahead of the others, especially in HO. For me selecting the turnouts will ultimately select the flex track.
Good morning my son Job (I just had to say that! Sorry)
Your issue is the central issue of which track to buy, your wisdom is well put. I learned the lesson at great expense of time and money.
Peco turnouts (code 83) the other code turnouts have different pro and con
Pro
Con
I have both Atlas and Peco code 83 and would trade the Peco if it were not so much work. I have more derailments on the Peco as well.
My gold standard for my layout is Atlas products for all track and tortoise/wrabbit for switch machines. The high cost of Peco turnouts offset the tortoise/wrabbit cost. Tortoise takes half the time or less to install vs the peco and wiring the wrabbit is brain dead simple easy and you get track side LED signaling too.
My
Great question, by the way!
Joe Daddy
joe-daddy wrote: nobullchitbids wrote: snip . . . I've read two of the three pages of replies and found confirmation of what the people at Bowser once told me: Model railroading has been replaced with model train running (the craftsmen are disappearing). snip . . . . Model railroading has many facets, few if any of us are expert craftsmen in all the areas, however you may be the exception. Craftsmen are made, not born; sucess breeds success. Lets help people be successful, not insist that unless they build their own turnouts, their lives will be amiss because their layout cannot pass your personal test of authenticity. At the moment I cannot think of a better way to discourage new modelers.Joe
nobullchitbids wrote: snip . . . I've read two of the three pages of replies and found confirmation of what the people at Bowser once told me: Model railroading has been replaced with model train running (the craftsmen are disappearing). snip . . . .
snip . . . I've read two of the three pages of replies and found confirmation of what the people at Bowser once told me: Model railroading has been replaced with model train running (the craftsmen are disappearing). snip . . . .
Model railroading has many facets, few if any of us are expert craftsmen in all the areas, however you may be the exception.
Craftsmen are made, not born; sucess breeds success. Lets help people be successful, not insist that unless they build their own turnouts, their lives will be amiss because their layout cannot pass your personal test of authenticity.
At the moment I cannot think of a better way to discourage new modelers.
You tell 'im, Joe!
Gee, imagine that, same topic has raged on Atlas for past weeks, I come over here and same thing. My layout was started in late 1988 era. Code 100 was about it. Layout is three decks, 28ft by 35 ft. To date, I still have a lot of code 100, also code 83 and 70. I have handlaid track, I have flex track. Layout runs just fine still today, and I will be darned if I will rip it up and replace all the code 100 just because some of you think it is "toy". The good news is you don't have to ever visit my railroad and be offended. Life is good.
Bob
nobullchitbids wrote:snip . . . I've read two of the three pages of replies and found confirmation of what the people at Bowser once told me: Model railroading has been replaced with model train running (the craftsmen are disappearing). snip . . . .
So many talk about the code 83 track but if you are running main lines as the modern world of today the rail is tall welded rail that supports the heavy loads of today. Whether you have code 100 or something in between to represent the tall rail is immaterial. The correct code 83 would be what I see down at the grain elivator sidings here in Terre Haute. All of this type of rail is usually in various states of disrepair and probably why they lost the grain cars off the track crossing US 41 a couple of weeks ago in connection with the Ice storm. I have too much invested in code 100 to change now and overall I run mostly modern equipment. I even get out the first train cars I had on occation that still have the old tall flanges. Yes the flanges will ride the top of the ties of the shorter rail. Yes you can hear every tie as they roll over them.
Enjoy the code 83 if you have it but remember that it would represent older railroads/trackage and especially pre-welded rail. I for one don't see the difference in the track but I also don't get down on the rail to eyeball it either.
Thanks, Newly Shrine Hill Rail
I just realized: You're going to have a whole lot of time inside in the winter to do all sorts of scratchbuilt railroad projects!
Do hope you have given some thought to how you are going to operate all those turnouts. About the cheapest one can get a Tortoise machine here is $10, maybe $8 for the Kemtron/NJIs except you also will need a big capacitor for the snap-action power supply, and they are not cheap. Even ground throws run about $3, choke cables about the same. So, the price really is about $5 more per turnout, minimum. Add signaling to that for the main line, and it will be at least $10/block, even if you roll your own (3-4 power transistors and parts). And we've yet to scenick a thing!
Model railroading is not cheap!
I would look into what is available in bulk on eBay -- I recently bought some brass-engine parts from a gent in England, and once I talked to him about needing them cheap rather than right away, we found the postage wasn't very much, and I had the parts inside of two weeks. A lot of the eBay track sold is brass, which by definition is code 100 (given your temperature problem, you don't want brass); but, you can find nickle-silver RTR as well as bundles of rail if you look and are patient.
If you're going to lay your own, don't overlook the TruScale line of "roadbed" -- it's no longer made, but a lot of old stock is around, and because it is white pine, it holds spikes very well, even under extreme swings in temperature.
And while we're on the craftsmanship angle, have you considered making your own switch machines? Basically, you need two empty thread spools and some magnet wire to wrap around them, plus an old piece of nail and the linkage (total cost each is about a dollar). Signaling contacts are extra, plus the power supply (don't even try to make your own capacitors).
Don Gibson, Yes I can get hold of Peco 75 in Sweden. Technicly I can get hold of Atlas through a SWedish store to. That isn't the problem. The problem is price. Each turnout is, I just now checked it out roughly 25$. Each piece of flextrack is 7$. If I compare that to buying Atlas there is a notable difrence. Infact. It's twice as expensive and since I'm going to get a minimum of 40 turnouts and 100 pieces of track that ads up. Also as I have said this is pretty much a trial version due to the poor local it is placed in. So I don't expect it to be around forever. Thus keeping cost down seems to be sensible to me. During the Winther it can get as cold as -30 degrees celsius in there quite often so I can't be in there during winther. So there for I try to learn from this and can't really care about details as trackweight.
But I do apreciate your coments. I hadn't really thought about C75 from Peco before and thanks to you I looked it up. The turnouts was a lot cheaper then c83 wich came as a surprise to me. I did not expect that. Maybe I will look into if I can get a deal on C75. But still, I'm leaning towards Atlas due to price.
Lillen:
SEEMS TO ME that last year (March?) a fellow Swede made the cover of MR ith one of the most realistic layouts I have ever seen. In particular was the track treatment - Peco code 75 - of coloring the ties.
I can not find my issue, but it (I think) P. Seoborg s adaptation of the town of Mojave, CA. renamed something else.
It jumped out of the page at me after 40 years, "I've been there!". Few layouts (including my own) can do that.
If you run up to end of WWII, very little US mainline was bigger than 90 lb rai, or needed to be. Cars were not that heavy. If Seoborg could find Peco code 75 in Sweden, so should you.
For the U.S. 'nuts' (I'm one) on what's proper in HO NMRA turnout design, look no further than Micro-Engineering for prefab, and BK for switch 'kit's, import duty and shipping withstanding. For the more masochistic bent, there is Proto 87.
http://www.troutcreekeng.com/bkho.html
http://www.proto87stores.com/p87stores/index.htm
As far as I know, B&O did not, but I'm not an expert on this road, and I could be wrong. B&O is the oldest railroad in North America, so the answer to your question also would involve asking about when you are modeling as well as where.
B&O in modern times would have used the 131-lb. rail (code 83) -- it hauled a lot of coal and would have needed the heavier rail to stand up to the abuse, especially on grades in the Allegheny mountains.
I have a history of the B&O at home (I'm at the office now), so I'll try to remember to look.
I forgot to mention previously: One problem commonly encountered in laying prefab track is the tendency of the track to kink inward when tacked to roadbed. You have to be very careful this does not happen, since it will narrow the gauge and cause no end to problems. Don't drive the tacks all the way down.
Also, with your temperature extremes, make certain you leave some space between rail joints on straights, welding joints only along curves. A tool which will help with laying curves is a rail former -- a pre-curved piece of wood or plastic which will just fit between the railheads and can be scooted along the ties to pre-bend the curves you want. If you can, install easements into the curves, which will keep engines and long cars from "snapping" violently into the curve -- this very much helps with tracking. Don't hesitate to use a few extra spikes to prevent the joints at curves from bowing out.
Nobullchitbids, thanks for a informative a intressting reply. I found your comments very good.
I have been thinking alot of tis topic. And I don't know where I'm going. I wan't to ad that it's really only in Sweden that the difrence in code makes a significant difrence in price. I agree that if I buy Atlas wich is most propable it doesn't really matter that much. That is in facour of C83. But I have no plans what so ever to take pictures of my layout. Infact it is pretty much a trial in laying tracks. I plan to make the "real" layout in 3-5 years. Right now I have a 3*5 metre room to fiddle with. I'm going to try to fit 45 meters of mainline in that space and I count on using about 45 more meters for yards and such. The plan is to use one pack of 100 Atlas track.
Well I'm going to think about this some more. I won't order for about another week while I calculate the exact things to order this time.
Do anyone know what size of rails the B&O used on there mainlines? Did they use the real heavy stuff somewhere and if so where?
Thanks, Lillen
Lillian, I've read two of the three pages of replies and found confirmation of what the people at Bowser once told me: Model railroading has been replaced with model train running (the craftsmen are disappearing).
I go back a long time. Here are a few things I've found which will help you:
If you want realism, learn to make your own turnouts -- there are no commercial turnouts which truly are realistic because all historically have had the design flaw of a single polarity in the pairs of points. Thus, the points always are of opposite polarity from one of the pick-up wheels and therefore must be thrown too far to the side to prevent shorts. To do it right, get ahold of the master article, "Jack Work Builds Better Turnouts," in the April 1963 issue of Model Railroader. He tells you exactly how to do it right. The issue is long out of print, but some libraries may have it, and I am sure if you ask nicely and send the requisite fee, MR will copy and send it to you.
The good news? You will save a lot more money making your own turnouts than you will niggling over cost re size of the rail.
Re the strength issue, I have not used Tortoises so have no opinion re them, but prior to Tortoises, the standard switch machine was the one long imported by Kemtron, and these had a good snap to them. They also had a godzillion contacts on them, good for interlocking signaling circuits. However, I have learned from many who have put scale rail and Kemtron machines together that over time these machines will knock the stock rails loose, inviting trouble, and that the problem is more pronounced with lighter rail. Therefore, I always recommend that modelers lay heavy rail in hidden locations because of its reliability. Not only does it go down solid, it will stay solid, especially at turnouts, and maintenance problems in difficult areas are reduced.
As for the rest of the layout, the first thing to ask is what are you modeling? Code 100 rail (154-lb.) was used in places like Horseshoe Curve and is perfectly prototypical for such a pike. Code 83 (131-lb.) was quite typical of main lines with grades using large locomotives like Big Boys. Code 70 (100-lb.) was more often seen on sidings and branches, where lighter engines were used, and indeed one of the reasons "tea kettle" steamers were kept on the U.P. so long was that they were aptly suited for use on light-railed branches. The prototype uses the lightest rail it can in any given application because rail is priced by weight -- 75-lb. rail is half as expensive as 150-lb. rail. And that adds to a lot if the railroad runs from Chicago to San Francisco. But, they weren't afraid to use heavy rail where it was needed, so how things "look" is not the measure. The measure is what your prototype used.
Now ask yourself what kind of compromises you must make: You're writing from Sweden, so perhaps you are stuck with Rivarossi-like equipment and deep flanges. I had to sell two cab forwards because the Rivarossi flanges would not run on scale rail, and I finally decided I wanted the scale rail more than the cheap articulateds. Cost is a factor to consider, but ask yourself just how much extra you would have to spend? How much extra is it really going to cost you? You did not mention whether you planned to run trains on a 4' X 8' platform or in a bowling alley. Or whether you are contemplating taking photographs of your creation and sending them to MR. If this last, then I assure you it is a good idea to invest in scale rail, because no matter how it's disguised, a camera will "out" it, and you can tell.
On the other hand, perhaps you have a problem some of us Yanks do: One of the writers mentioned the difficulty of running the old RP-25 wheels with semi-scale stuff. Here the problem is that the guard rails protecting turnout frogs only will work for one of them -- guard rails for the profile wheels have to be narrower, or they won't keep the flange away from the frog point, and cars with these wheels will wander down the wrong route.
Well, believe it or not, this is not a new problem -- O-gaugers had the same problem in the 1940s when they mixed tinplate wheels with more-to-scale varieties (the tinplate wheels got stuck in the narrowed guard rails). This obliged modelers either to thin the flange from the back of the wheel or replace the wheels. And some did find more innovative solutions, but I simply don't recall what they were right now (looking that up is whoever's homework assignment).
Do not be misled by all the discussion re shear and tensile strength -- aside from the stock-rail problem mentioned (or anything similar, where there is violent side-to-side knocking), it should be irrelevant. It is far more important that your track be laid securely sans twists or warps, and this is a function of the ties and roadbed, plus benchwork support. You indicate there will be significant temperature extremes in your layout space, and you definitely need to be concerned about that; but, trust me, no rail is strong enough to withstand the kind of buckling temperature extremes can cause, so any increased strength in Code 100 here is meaningless. Investigate instead using metal framing rather than wood.
Finally, don't let anyone intimidate you with "compatability" problems. There is a simple way to solve the height problem when changing rail sizes: Take a piece of larger rail and a moto-tool with a cutting disk in it. Cut a slot in the web about a half inch deep, then knock off the head and square everything with a file. File the rail web flat to the difference in height between the one section of rail and the next. Now solder the smaller-sized rail to the web, making sure the inside of the two rail heads lines up. Lay this rail in place with shim stock under the ties for a short length extending from the splice. You should have a perfect transition section.
Now, you can use both Code 83 and Code 100, plus Code 70 as well.
dtc9113 wrote: No Atlas track readily available? No wonder great granpa left Sweden!
No Atlas track readily available? No wonder great granpa left Sweden!
That was the one and ONLY factor that one million swedes left the country. Sure the Irish have their potato famine but we have "The great flextrack at reasonable costs famine" of the late 19th century.
Besides giving some historical information I would liket to thank all of you for your input. Both sides seems have good arguments for there case. My opinion seems to be this right now. I do NOT think that there is a great difrence in looks as far as I'm concernded. 100 is cheaper. And acording to some more forgiving. In any case it is not less forgiving then 83 as far as I understand.
This leads me to think that based on that I should go for code 100 given that the only advantage is looks. And that I do not care about since I don't think there is a large difrence. If it's better or not is then a moot point. By the criterias set up by me code 100 wins.
Thanks everyone for your imput pro 100 or pro 83. You all have valid point and both sides have argued well for there cause.
Brunton wrote: Now if I could only get some scenery done...)
Now if I could only get some scenery done...)
Mark, if you truly consider yourself a Structural Engineer, then you know that a new building becomes far far less interesting once they start covering up that gorgeous framing with all the gingerbread stuff (glass, brick, drywall, etc). I prefer to think of my layout in similar terms - I'm not looking at bare unfinished benchwork, I'm admiring beautiful exposed structure! The gingerbread (scenery) will come in due time.
I've digressed off of the main topic. Sorry.
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
You use whatever track you like. David Barrow is a great modeler his Cat Mountain and Santa Fe used Code 100 track. Go back in Model Railroader and read what Barrow had to say about Code 100 vs Code 83 and you'll feel allot better about buying code 100.
cwn3 wrote: Bruton: In summation, I was merely trying to say (in laymen's terms) that code 100 track does have some tangible, physical advantages and is stronger and more robust overall than code 83 (and lighter codes, of course.) And as such will better survive mishandling and is more forgiving of a less than perfect substructure, and will give better final results under such conditions than c83.BTW, Great layout Bruton, that helix is truly a thing of beauty!
In summation, I was merely trying to say (in laymen's terms) that code 100 track does have some tangible, physical advantages and is stronger and more robust overall than code 83 (and lighter codes, of course.) And as such will better survive mishandling and is more forgiving of a less than perfect substructure, and will give better final results under such conditions than c83.
BTW, Great layout Bruton, that helix is truly a thing of beauty!
I agree with most of the posts. I model 50-early 70's. The rail was lighter then. I have a few spurs laid in code 40, to simulate really older trackage. Code 70-55 looks about right for most things of this era since I model the DSS&A in Upper Michigan it just feels right. I hand lay it and I generally only have trouble with switch points comming unsoldered.
Bob Shimer
Lillen
I just recently finished replacing all the visible track code 100 with code 83 on my layout. The code 100 had been in service for years and worked just fine and there were only 2 factors that inspired me to change. The size of the ties, code 83 are much smaller and closer to scale, was the first and most important and second the new line of turnouts with insulated frogs (DCC friendly). It was a very satisfying project and the railroad runs much better mainly due to the new turnouts and the smaller ties definitely are an improvement.
Check out my web site to see the process look in What's New.
www.ucwrr.com
Good luck on your choices I would recommend code 83 based on looks alone, but code 100 will work just fine and is probably a litter cheaper if budget is a concern
Have Fun
Lee Nicholas
Joe-Daddy: Thank you
Bruton:
Brunton wrote: And, unfortunately, wrong in several ways. Common sense? No, more a lack of understanding than anything. While durability and strength are related, they are NOT the same thing, any more than hardness and toughness are the same... Durability is an indicator of how much punishment something can absorb...
And, unfortunately, wrong in several ways. Common sense? No, more a lack of understanding than anything.
While durability and strength are related, they are NOT the same thing, any more than hardness and toughness are the same... Durability is an indicator of how much punishment something can absorb...
I was referring to the durability of the materials in the context of "handling & installation." As evidence:
Texas Zepher wrote: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.
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.
The comment was not in reference to the wear of the rails, which I believe is probably a non-issue for all but the heaviest of usage situations. (As is deformation of the track from the weight of equipment.)
Brunton wrote:Strength, on the other hand, is simply the ability of a material to resist imposed forces. Here code 100 is much greater than 20% stronger than code 83 (in tension), because the cross-sectional area is more than 20% greater. In bending code 100 is probably around 20%, but that certainly isn't a precise value, because bending is not only dependent upon the area of the rail cross-section, but also upon the geometry of the cross-section, and that varies between manufacturers (and sometimes within the same manufacturer!).
Strength, on the other hand, is simply the ability of a material to resist imposed forces. Here code 100 is much greater than 20% stronger than code 83 (in tension), because the cross-sectional area is more than 20% greater. In bending code 100 is probably around 20%, but that certainly isn't a precise value, because bending is not only dependent upon the area of the rail cross-section, but also upon the geometry of the cross-section, and that varies between manufacturers (and sometimes within the same manufacturer!).
I stand corrected, and should've been clearer; c100 rail has a cross-section of more than 20% greater than c83 track, and therefore at least 20% more strength, be it tensile, shear, or deflection. (Assuming the same cross-sectional rail profile, and the same alloys are used in manufacture.) But I really think we're splitting hairs here Bruton...
Brunton wrote:How much the ties contribute to the structural integrity of the track depends on the direction of the applied loads. For example, the ties contribute basically nothing to the tensile strength of track, because the modulus of elasticity of the ties is so inferior to that of the metal in the rail that it basically does nothing.
How much the ties contribute to the structural integrity of the track depends on the direction of the applied loads. For example, the ties contribute basically nothing to the tensile strength of track, because the modulus of elasticity of the ties is so inferior to that of the metal in the rail that it basically does nothing.
Agreed, so far...
Brunton wrote: Vertically the ties also add essentially nothing to the strength of the track, as the molded spikes carry all load from the rail to the ties, and they break off the base of the rail very easily.
Vertically the ties also add essentially nothing to the strength of the track, as the molded spikes carry all load from the rail to the ties, and they break off the base of the rail very easily.
I don't actually have any experience working with c83 track, but I'll go out on a limb and disagree here. Yes, the molded spikes do carry the load, but I'm guessing they are consistently heavier on c100 than those commonly found on c83, and therefore c100 will carry a greater vertical load before breaking free...
Brunton wrote:Laterally, ties DO add significantly to the strength of the track, as the plastic resists shearing forces much better than bending forces, and they tie the two rails together into a semi-rigid unit. Because of the ties, the moment of inertia of the track in a lateral direction is many times what it is in just the rails (approaching two orders of magnitude greater, in fact!), thus substantially increasing the ability to take load laterally, despite the relatively weak plastic.
Laterally, ties DO add significantly to the strength of the track, as the plastic resists shearing forces much better than bending forces, and they tie the two rails together into a semi-rigid unit. Because of the ties, the moment of inertia of the track in a lateral direction is many times what it is in just the rails (approaching two orders of magnitude greater, in fact!), thus substantially increasing the ability to take load laterally, despite the relatively weak plastic.
Agreed again... I'll take your word for the "two orders of magnitude" part.
Brunton wrote:As far as kinking during installation - you have to push pretty hard to put a vertical kink in the track, even on code 70 (I don't have exact force values - that varies with the roadbed. Soft roadbed, like cork, will require less force than with a hard roadbed, like plywood - unless the roadbed itself is kinkeed in some way, then it's exacly the opposite). I'm speaking from experience here, not from engineering analysis.
As far as kinking during installation - you have to push pretty hard to put a vertical kink in the track, even on code 70 (I don't have exact force values - that varies with the roadbed. Soft roadbed, like cork, will require less force than with a hard roadbed, like plywood - unless the roadbed itself is kinkeed in some way, then it's exacly the opposite). I'm speaking from experience here, not from engineering analysis.
This is exactly what I was implying by "careless construction". I was also stating that the heavier track will resist the lateral forces applied by the difference in the coefficient of expansion of the wood products used in benchwork & subroadbed as compared with that of the metal rail. As such, c100 track will resist developing kinks better than c83 with time, temperature & humidity...
Fred: Chill... There's plenty of information out there, both in printed works and on this forum. If one wants an education, all one has to do is look. (Or post a question...)
Midnight Railroader & Others:
At what point do we admit that heavier track is a bit easier to handle without damaging, and somewhat more forgiving? How about we take this to the N'th degree... compare working with c100 to c55, or c40. Do you admit there's a difference here? Look, I'm not saying there's a vast difference between c100 and c83, just that there is one. And that may mean the difference between a working layout and one that's a constant aggravation, especially where someone new to the hobby is concerned...
fwright wrote:Joe Daddy is coming from the perspective of a newcomer who doesn't have decades of experience or of reading Model Railroader to know how to overcome the obstacles he encounters when following the recommendations of the "experts". Plus, not having been in the hobby for a while, he gets easily frustrated when incompatibilites, "defects", or lack of ease of use gets in his way. After all, the rest of his world isn't like this mysterious new hobby. At first, I like others with more time in this hobby, was/have been pretty hard on Joe Daddy and others like him. My expectations for everything working right the 1st time were much lower than his, and I was also disappointed that he hadn't picked up on the problems earlier in the forums. Fred W
Joe Daddy is coming from the perspective of a newcomer who doesn't have decades of experience or of reading Model Railroader to know how to overcome the obstacles he encounters when following the recommendations of the "experts". Plus, not having been in the hobby for a while, he gets easily frustrated when incompatibilites, "defects", or lack of ease of use gets in his way. After all, the rest of his world isn't like this mysterious new hobby. At first, I like others with more time in this hobby, was/have been pretty hard on Joe Daddy and others like him. My expectations for everything working right the 1st time were much lower than his, and I was also disappointed that he hadn't picked up on the problems earlier in the forums.
Fred,
I think your tone and comments are right on. I didn't get so frustrated and impatient as I was annoyed and upset because in my case the premium priced turnouts (Peco) I purchased were twice the cost of the ones (Atlas) I was using. Those premium turnotus introduced a whole set of issues and problems I neither expected nor could have anticipated. What I thought was to be a real step up in operational satisfaction turned into a large and labor intensive problem. I would have been much better off and far more satisfied with the results if I had stayed with the Atlas and moved sooner too Tortoise. The experts I was listening to were recommending I use Peco Motors on my Atlas turnouts, advice, that if I had taken it would have given me even more headaches.
I learned painfully and quickly that the term Code xxx means little in regard to compatibility between manufacturers. Searching out the web, at the time, I was unable to find anything that talked about these kinds of problems. To me, this thread, while it has been a bit of a bite personally at times, at least helps to magnify this issue, and I hope it helps us all get and give better, more careful advice and help in the future.
Best regards to all who are and have contributed there 25 cents to this topic. I think it has been valuable.
Best regards,
Gentlemen: I repeat.
The Only reason for buying Code 100 products today - when superior products are availabe:
(1) because it's CHEAPER. - No excuses or justifIcation needed.
(2) you have old Rivarossi or AHM engines requiring oversized flangeways.
(3) your a 'newbie to 'modeling''.
One buys what they need to do the job.
Competativr Manufacturers don't care about if your having problems using competative products to theirs. That's why mixing brands adds problems. NMRA is only a recommended practice. - hence the designation 'RP 25' etc.
Code 83 track only has to be .083" high. End profiles (where rails join) vary and Atlas' '83 is raised to .100" high with thicker ties. Each manufacturer is hoping to set the next 'standard'.
Unbelieveable! I go away for a couple of weeks and I get quoted how many times? And I'm an expert in what?
There are several different perspectives at work here, and I think we need to remember what they are.
But would a beginner reading a post about the height differences between Atlas and Walters code 83 track lines understand the implications for their situation? Would they automatically know to adjust the height at the base of the ties instead of filing or sanding the rail head? Is a beginner told to sand the cork roadbed joints to make sure they have a smooth surface on which to lay their track? How many posts on soldering rail joiners/rail joints point out that without doing so, it is very difficult (especially for beginners) to avoid kinks at the joints with Atlas flex track on sharper radius curves? How many posts on using the stiffer flex tracks (Peco, Walters, especially ME) point out that the bending to a consistent curve is much easier if one uses a form or jig of some kind? Is it pointed out that those mixing Peco turnouts (except the new American style code 83) with other track makes will see a big difference in the tie (sleeper) size and spacing? How many realize that Atlas code 83 track is inconsistent in tie width (and perhaps other dimensions - I don't remember the post that clearly) from one production run to another?
I've come to learn and appreciate that
a) these are indeed real frustrations for those new to the hobby who come from worlds were stuff is expected to work out of the box.
b) both todays Internet forums and the hobby magazines do a relatively poor job of addressing these beginner and intermediate issues.
Paul and many others prefer a more-to-scale appearance, and have the knowledge and will to achieve the appearance without sacrificing train running reliability. My only question to them is how do I get both code 88 and 110 wheel sets to run reliably through the same turnouts? Should the back-to-back be set differently for the narrower wheels, or the same? Is there an optimum flangeway, check, and track gauge for both wheel sizes? My questions, which few beginners would even begin to understand the implications of, is an example of the gulf between the 1st and 2nd perspectives.
How many newcomers to the hobby know that they need an NMRA gauge and a coupler height gauge as critical tools to get their trains to run well? Where are articles on how to use these tools for maximum benefit?
Myself, I prefer to handlay track in a mixture of rail sizes using code 40, 55, and 70 rail. but I know what I have to do to make the rail joints between different rail sizes match. I know that I cannot buy, or must be prepared to rework, locos and rolling stock with flanges deeper than .025".
Another thought: unfortunately, model rail is sized by height only. The "code" says nothing about the width of the head, and the thickness of the web and base. In reality, from our normal viewing angles of above the track, the width of the rail head is at least as important in determining how "big" the rail appears as its height. Different makes of rail of the same code have different rail head widths.
just my thoughts, your choices
I don't believe there's any advantage to using code 100 track at all except for the price. There's no way the home modeler--or even most clubs-will ever wear out code 83, 70 or 55 rail. All track kinks if you handle it improperly.
But I'm cheap and, frankly, I have looked at c100 vs. 83 after the c100's been weathered and ballasted, and I don't see enough of a difference to spend the extra money. However, I do see a noticeable difference when a train sits on c100 vs. c55; the train does look more realistic and "heavier."
If you like code 100, then use it. I do.
But don't try to come up with rationalizations like "it's more durable."
joe-daddy wrote: cwn3 wrote: OK, c100 is definitely more durable, robust, resilient, whatever adjective you want to choose to say stronger, than c83! (20% stronger to be precise, and this doesn't take into consideration the thickness of the ties, and the added structural integrity they contribute to the equation.) That is going to make it less likely to incur damage in handling & installation, and also less prone to develop kinks over time from changes in the benchwork/subroadbed due to temperature & humidity. It is also probably a bit less likely to conform to vertical kinks in your subroadbed, (due to careless construction.) if you're using caulk or glue for the install, simply by bending less when it is pushed upon.This [to me] says that c100 is the more reliable choice, period. This is not rocket science, just common sense, especially where the novice is concerned.Rational, logical, factual, objective, No Spin, clearly stated.
cwn3 wrote: OK, c100 is definitely more durable, robust, resilient, whatever adjective you want to choose to say stronger, than c83! (20% stronger to be precise, and this doesn't take into consideration the thickness of the ties, and the added structural integrity they contribute to the equation.) That is going to make it less likely to incur damage in handling & installation, and also less prone to develop kinks over time from changes in the benchwork/subroadbed due to temperature & humidity. It is also probably a bit less likely to conform to vertical kinks in your subroadbed, (due to careless construction.) if you're using caulk or glue for the install, simply by bending less when it is pushed upon.This [to me] says that c100 is the more reliable choice, period. This is not rocket science, just common sense, especially where the novice is concerned.
That is going to make it less likely to incur damage in handling & installation, and also less prone to develop kinks over time from changes in the benchwork/subroadbed due to temperature & humidity. It is also probably a bit less likely to conform to vertical kinks in your subroadbed, (due to careless construction.) if you're using caulk or glue for the install, simply by bending less when it is pushed upon.
This [to me] says that c100 is the more reliable choice, period. This is not rocket science, just common sense, especially where the novice is concerned.
Rational, logical, factual, objective, No Spin, clearly stated.
While durability and strength are related, they are NOT the same thing, any more than hardness and toughness are the same (diamonds are the hardest substance known, but they are not the toughest). Durability is an indicator of how much punishment something can absorb. Items can be very durable under certain forms of duress and much less durable under other forms. The durability of code 83 track is nearly identical to that of code 100, as the rolling surface of the railheads are nearly even in terms of wheel contact area, where most of the punishment comes from. Model equipment (at least in HO and smaller scales) is not heavy enough to cause bending issues even in code 40 rail, so rail wear is the only area where durability comes into play. Strength, on the other hand, is simply the ability of a material to resist imposed forces. Here code 100 is much greater than 20% stronger than code 83 (in tension), because the cross-sectional area is more than 20% greater. In bending code 100 is probably around 20%, but that certainly isn't a precise value, because bending is not only dependent upon the area of the rail cross-section, but also upon the geometry of the cross-section, and that varies between manufacturers (and sometimes within the same manufacturer!).
How much the ties contribute to the structural integrity of the track depends on the direction of the applied loads. For example, the ties contribute basically nothing to the tensile strength of track, because the modulus of elasticity of the ties is so inferior to that of the metal in the rail that it basically does nothing. Vertically the ties also add essentially nothing to the strength of the track, as the molded spikes carry all load from the rail to the ties, and they break off the base of the rail very easily. Laterally, ties DO add significantly to the strength of the track, as the plastic resists shearing forces much better than bending forces, and they tie the two rails together into a semi-rigid unit. Because of the ties, the moment of inertia of the track in a lateral direction is many times what it is in just the rails (approaching two orders of magnitude greater, in fact!), thus substantially increasing the ability to take load laterally, despite the relatively weak plastic.
Yes, this is common sense, honed somewhat by a bit of analytical thought and a general understanding of the mechanics of materials and assemblies.
cwn3 wrote:OK, c100 is definitely more durable, robust, resilient, whatever adjective you want to choose to say stronger, than c83! (20% stronger to be precise, and this doesn't take into consideration the thickness of the ties, and the added structural integrity they contribute to the equation.)That is going to make it less likely to incur damage in handling & installation, and also less prone to develop kinks over time from changes in the benchwork/subroadbed due to temperature & humidity. It is also probably a bit less likely to conform to vertical kinks in your subroadbed, (due to careless construction.) if you're using caulk or glue for the install, simply by bending less when it is pushed upon.This [to me] says that c100 is the more reliable choice, period. This is not rocket science, just common sense, especially where the novice is concerned.
OK, c100 is definitely more durable, robust, resilient, whatever adjective you want to choose to say stronger, than c83! (20% stronger to be precise, and this doesn't take into consideration the thickness of the ties, and the added structural integrity they contribute to the equation.)
Good Job Charlie!
So far as I know, all the Atlas c100 turnouts (except for the "snap switches") are designed with a straight leg thru the frog and are NMRA compliant. (As compliant as any, I suppose.)
BTW, I'm not cheap, I'm German - that makes me frugal.
Actually I'm planning on c83 (and possibly c70 for spurs) for all visible tracks.
C'mon somebody, what's the story on the Bachmann Code 83???
For me, the long and short of it:
CODE 100 The only justification for using it (when superior products abound) is: 1. You have old RIVAROSSI or AHM poducts with those deep fake flanges.
2. You buy it because it's cheaper. No excuses or justification needed.
CODE 83 is newer and reflects manufactiring costs with todays dollar. Bonus is more realism to match a good engine, plus the track will outlast the rest of your layout.
2. Code 83 'turnouts' so far are NMRA designs with straight sections through the frog and beyond. They make for better ladders & crossovers.
EUROPEAN style switches offer a complete curve - better for dropping into that curve; or when designing a 'Y' turn around, or 'T' interchange.
Some manufacuters seem to loath to specify their radius (which is in Metric) preferring to use "small", "medium", and "large"- probably metric equivalents close to 18", 24". and 36" radii. I don't know if the 4X8 plywood board has taken over Europe yet.
Shilshole wrote: 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:Small rail makes everything look better and much more realistic.
Except trucks equipped with wheels having the standard .110" wheel tread...
RP-25 (.110) wheels were recommended practice for the extruded rail of 50 years ago - which is still sold today (except for the nickel silver vs. brass part) and what is still on many layouts.
PROBLEM: Much of the rail being used today is spaced too wide (yes) to handle fine scale wheels. I'm buying Micro-Engineering code 70 flex now while others are buying Atlas code 100 & code 83 because it's cheaper and "bends easier".
FEW are into hand laying track - not because it's hard, but because it's time consuming. Hand laid track is the only sure-fire way Iknow to run fine scale wheels until suppliers discover a profitable nich market out there.
So far as I know, Micro-Engineering is behind Atlas, Shinohara, Walthers, Peco, and Model Power in sales of track products... and that's just HO.
However, it is also less realistic than c83. (Not arguable.) How much this matters to you personally is dependant upon your own eye for detail and your desire to be true to the prototype. As has been stated, c100 can look very good once weathered & ballasted.
As far as choosing track for a first layout, (that will most probably be dismantled) I would have to say c100 is the wise choice. This track need not go to waste either; if installed using caulk, it can most likely be salvaged and used for hidden track on your next, and larger venture. (Should you desire to go with code 83, 70, etc.)
Riding this "Train of Thought" (pun intended.) you get to have your cake & eat it too! You save money now, gain experience, and have the most reliable operation for your first layout, and not have it all go to waste.
What I would like to see discussed is the differences between manufactures of flextrack. Atlas' is very flexible, and has a memory if you will. It wants to be straight, making it more difficult to work with on curves. Price difference is ~ $2.50 (c83) vs $2.10 (c100) per yard. (Mail order, of course.) But what about Bachmann c83 track? Mail order it's available for only $1.79/yard in quantity. Does this brand compromise on quality control, where track gauge is concerned? (Which would make it a poor choice as far as reliability goes.) Or, does it not look as realistic as, say the Atlas track? (Lets not even consider, for instance, Micro Engineering, which can't be had for less than almost $5/section. We are talking cost being a motivating factor!)
Any thoughts on this might clear the waters further...
For me, it is the cost, availability locally when I run out, and the ease of manipulation. Code 100 wins out in those respects.
However, as a group, perhaps we should encourage younger people to take advantages of all that the lighter Codes have to offer, not the least of which is a truer scale. If you can handle the finer work required, why not take advantage of the finer looks? Once you get older, as I have gotten, many of us will be consigned to what we can easily see and manage, and that is the "older" stuff.
I run Code 83 turnouts with Code 100 rail, and my only difficulties have been in getting the transition joiners to fit...which I eventually learned to do, one of the many lessons that we all have to learn if we are to get the most that the hobby offers. My trains have no fewer, and no more, problems, with the Code 83 turnouts than they did with my older EZ-Track ones which are Code 100.
Hey, everybody, let me add my own coals to the firebox, here!
Code 83 vs. code 100 is a matter of personal preference. It isn't difficult to lay either (or code 70 too, for that matter) and get good running results. If you have derailment problems with track, regardless of its size, then you have issues with either trackwork or rolling stock (or some of both). Just bringing your rolling stock into NMRA standards compliance will eliminate a surprisingly large percentage of derailments. 99% of the rest will go by using good quality track components and a little care in laying the track.
On my own layout, I use code 100, code 83 and code 70. 100 is on hidden trackage, of which I have a considerable amount. I've used about 300 pieces of it so far - cost savings over code 83 approximately $120.00. I use code 83 on all visible mainline trackage because to me it looks better. I use code 70 on secondary trackage because the the difference in rail size between mainline and siding adds to the realism for very little additional effort (just like I drop the heights of sidings from mainlines). To me it is worth it. If it isn't worth it to you, then don't do it.
But don't pick one or the other based on difficulty of good trackwork - it isn't any more difficult to lay code 70 or 83 than it is code 100 (in fact, I think code 83 is easier than code 100 - easier to cut (finer cross-section).
Hi paul3
That 40c per yard can add up to a lot of dollars over a whole layout and for some could be the difference between a layout worth having or not bothering at all.
In my case its code 100 or no layout at all to run my trains on a lot of my trains are 40 years old and still running well and just will not run on code 83 track
Since I have no plans on replacing 40 years worth of purchases for me its code 100 rail
I cannot see what the fuss is all about its like the difference between 60kg rail and 90kg rail
Who is running 14lb rail on there layout that would be akin to using N or Z rail at HO spacing
Different requirements just the same as the full sized railways once ballasted properly it looks well like railway track
regards John
Simon,
The hard Sell is not for Code 100, the hard sell is from the other team. I have not read, nor did I say that Code 100 is better with RP25, I and others have said what you have said, Code 100 is friendly to old style wheels. I know that many, not all code 83 compents puke when an old wheel comes rolling along. And we have established through a number of testimonies that Code 100 is more durable, less likely to kink and therefore more likely to be reliable for any type of wheel.
Well laid, kink free code 83 and 100 work equally well with RP25. However, put a 70 degree temperature swing, not so excellent roadbed and life for code 83 is a bigger challenge, which is not to say that code 100 will do all that better with the temperature swing either!
The point of this thread from my perspective ought to be, "use the track that best fits your needs. All have their pluses and minuses". There are those on this thread who say it is always unacceptable. If they put "to them and their requirements", there would have been less push back and energy. It is statements like "To me, using Code 100 is like using Lionel tinplate track." that are, IMHO hard sell.
The only legitimate issue I can see with Code 100 is in the eye of the beholder.
Regards and great peace to all,
I use code 100 as stated above because of the need for deeper flanges.
I do not buy the argument that code 100 will give better operating characteristics with modern equipment. Let us assume 2 identical layouts laid with the different codes to the same standards. To my way of thinking, an RP25 wheel will have exactly the same contact area in the rail/wheel interface if it is running on code 100 or code 83. The only difference will be that the edge of the tread will be 17 thou higher above the spike detail. Just thinking in these terms, how can there possibly be any difference in running characteristics? You could make the rail code 300 and all that would happen is that the loco would be higher, there would be no more wheel touching metal rail.
For me, code 100 fits my needs. But I certainly would not want to "hard sell" the notion that it is in any way superior to a more prototypical looking rail.
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
Paul3 wrote: To me, using Code 100 is like using Lionel tinplate track.
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.
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).
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.
joe-daddy wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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,
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.