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).
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
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,
Joe
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).
Personally, I use code 100 on my portable modules because I tried code 83 and it was always (I mean every setup take down cycle) getting damaged in transport. With the code 100 I've had only two accidents.
There seem to be more and more companies making code 83 track in more and more varied pieces. The code 100 market seems to be stuck with the same "pieces" that have been made for years and years.
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.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
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.
-Crandell
Hi Crandell, thanks for your e-mail. Unfortunaly I can't answer it in e-mail form since there is no return adress. So I reply here.
I was very moved by your gracious sugestion. Most unusual. I will decline with the greatest respect and admiration for your gesture since the trouble, risk and expense propably excedes just ordering them myself. Something I will probably do given how good that video was. So as I said, I'm extremly gratefull. I told my wife about this and she was equally astonished that someone would do that.
From the depth of my soul, thanks!
Magnus
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?
Lillen
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,
Joe Daddy
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.
Thanks, Lillen
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?
Fred W
Paul3 wrote:Small rail makes everything look better and much more realistic.
Except trucks equipped with wheels having the standard .110" wheel tread...
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!