Code 83 rails vs code 100?

[simon1966]

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.

[joe-daddy]

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,

Joe 

[John Busby]

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

[Pruitt]

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).

[selector]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

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...

 

[Don Gibson]

Small rail makes everything look better and much more realistic.

Except trucks equipped with wheels having the standard .110" wheel tread... 

I pretty much with Paul3 on this one.

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.

[Don Gibson]

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.

[Anonymous]

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???

 

[joe-daddy]

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.

Good Job Charlie!

 

Joe Daddy 

 

[Pruitt]

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.

And, unfortunately, inaccurate in several ways. Common sense? No, something of a lack of understanding though.

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.

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.

Yes, this is common sense, honed somewhat by a bit of analytical thought and a general understanding of the mechanics of materials and assemblies.

[Midnight Railroader]

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."

[fwright]

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.

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. 

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

Fred W

[Don Gibson]

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'.

[joe-daddy]

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

 

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,

Joe Daddy 

[Anonymous]

Joe-Daddy: Thank you

Bruton:

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:

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.)

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...

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...

 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...

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.

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...

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!

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...

 

[leeucwrr]

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

[rws]

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 

[Pruitt]

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!

Sometimes I get so focused on the technical I don't think so much about the practical. When significant handling is involved, I agree completely that code 100 track is much more capable of absorbing abuse than the smaller rail sizes. And thanks for the kind words about my layout! Now if I could only get some scenery done...)

[dtc9113]

No Atlas track readily available? No wonder great granpa left Sweden!

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.

[Amtrak_Titan]

    The Code 100 track is cheap but Atlas Code 83 track looks realistic.

[mononguy63]

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.

Jim

[jobfather]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lillen]

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.

 

Magnus 

[nobullchitbids]

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.

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.

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.

[Lillen]

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

 

[nobullchitbids]

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.

[selector]

That last suggestion is a lesson I managed to teach myself very early in my own tracklaying.  Using thin track spikes or nails just inside and just outside the ends of necessarily gapped rail ends, but especially on curves, really is a good idea.  In fact, I would lay the curve, place two nails on either side of each rail on each side of the cut zone, tight to the rail foot as you can get it, and then use a cut-off disk or a jeweller's saw blade to cut the gap.  Nothing will move, and that is what you want.

[Don Gibson]

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

 

 

[Lillen]

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.

 Magnus