I'm thinking of going with ME 83 in all my visible areas, but I have a section of large section of track that runs under the layout and is relatively unaccessible. At first, I was thinking of going Atlas 83 to save a few bucks, but now I'm thinking Atlas 100--to make it 17% less likely to derail in no-man's land. Okay, I made the 17% up.
What would you do?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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
simon1966 wrote:Form a self-help-group with wesno for those paranoid about the use of Atlas Code 100 track.
The Atlas 12-step motto--one lay at a time.
SpaceMouse wrote: I'm thinking of going with ME 83 in all my visible areas, but I have a section of large section of track that runs under the layout and is relatively unaccessible. At first, I was thinking of going Atlas 83 to save a few bucks, but now I'm thinking Atlas 100--to make it 17% less likely to derail in no-man's land. Okay, I made the 17% up. What would you do?
First, I never saw wesno's post.
2nd, A higher profile has to make a little difference, but the transition rail might be a source for derailing. Actually I'm speculating here.
Now we are being paranoid about being lumped in with other paranoid modelers!
Seriously, I see no problem with putting lower cost track into un-viewed areas.
Chip, you are talking about a slight shim to bring track level up 17 thou. This transition should pose no problems at all.
SpaceMouse wrote: 2nd, A higher profile has to make a little difference, but the transition rail might be a source for derailing. Actually I'm speculating here.
Now, you could argue that deeper flanges (within reason) would hold a car on the track more securely...
Midnight Railroader wrote:Why? If the flange doesn't touch the ties or spikes how does the height of the rail have anything to do with keeping the wheel on the rail?
Why? If the flange doesn't touch the ties or spikes how does the height of the rail have anything to do with keeping the wheel on the rail?
As you know Chip, I model N scale, but I have had to deal with the same question. I decided to run code 70 ME track for the visible mainline on the class 1 RR and then I switched to Atlas code 80 cheapo stuff for all the hidden areas. The shortline RR, the focus of the layout, is Atlas code 55 on the visible portions and Atlas code 80 in the hidden areas.
I really did all of this for cost reasons though. I've got a lot of hidden track. If I didn't have much hidden track then it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Chip, when I got back into the hobby a few years ago, I ripped up most of my old code 100 Atlas rail (and the handlaid code 70 yard that would have been almost impossible to get back up to snuff after 15 years of just sitting there) except for the hidden areas. I have found absolutely no difference in the running qualities of code 83 versus code 100. For me price is the only consideration as to the running quality. Looks is another story completely. For my layout even code 83 is huge compared to the 1925 prototype. I have several sections of handlaid code 70 still in place on the SLOW and it looks far better.
In short, I would say use code 83 wherever it can be seen, and code 100 where it can't. If you are concerned about transition, you can buy short sections of transition track from walthers. I used a couple going from code 83 to 70 and back. But just shiming the 83 is the easiest and cheapest way from code 83 to 100. Just my .
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
loathar wrote:The only reason I would consider the Atlas 100 is it seems to be a little stronger. The "spikes" that hold the rail are bigger and less prone to breakage. I don't see where height would factor in unless your running old large flange steamers and then you better rethink the ME 83 on your main level.
Do you know lots of people who have had their code 83 flextrack fail because of their heavy locomotives? I have never heard of one.
Chip, with your abilities, you are highly unlikely to experience problems with Code 70 in hidden areas let alone Code 83. So, if you are one who enjoys frugality when it seems appropriate, you can always re-use the stuff you merely tack into place or lightly caulk in the hidden zones on future layout (..not this one). If you can get a bit of a deal on Code 83, you don't have to deal with transtions anywhere. So, I would counsel you to keep it simple, and use Code 83 throughout.
-Crandell
When it comes to hidden trackage (of which I am building a LOT) the newborn chick has the last word:
CHEEP!!!
Some of my hidden staging is laid with raw (salvaged) rail on plain pine 1-by. The rest is code 100 flex - Atlas, and some Shinohara. A few back-in storage tracks have Italian-made code 100 brass rail flex at the non-powered ends. My specialwork is all hand laid, but with code 100 rail. (I've been careful with tie spacing - for practice, not for appearance.) Ballast?
Once construction reaches a point where the result will be visible, code 83 concrete-tie flex will replace the code 100 semi-formal, and I'll be paying a LOT of attention to the things that the prototype did (KM posts, 100 meter stakes, grade markers, curve boards, wooden ties under joint bars every 20 meters...) Until the trackage is intended to be seen by visitors, my watchwords are cheap, quick and simple.
Chuck (building the netherworld under Central Japan in September, 1964)
I plan on laying ME 83 also for a variety of reasons listed on other threads, including slightly stiffer than Atlas and thus might hold curves better when laying curves, and more realistic looking, though also more pricey than Atlas. Having said that, our club has Atlas 100 and it looks good to me; if I wasn't starting out and already had Code 100 in place, doubt I'd want to change it. Interesting comment on another thread(?Crandell) stated that the non-prototypical look of Code 100 may be more noticeable when taking photos.
Jim
Mouse that Roared:
As you have observed, our trains would run on wood (rails) if they could get electricity, so whatever 'look's better can be superceded by what's 'cheaper, when out of sight.
As long as it isn't switches - which derail things. Your ME's are a good choice.
Loathar, and others:
While I agree in principle, take an NMRA gage to Atlas 100 flex sometime.
I've seen over and over people doing similar things. The excuse is always saving money. It doesn't seem to be that huge a difference in cost though. And the Atlas Code 83 track is FAR FAR better quality than their Code 100. My Atlas Code 83 NEVER derails - so I'd think using the Atlas Code 83 would be a fine tradeoff over using ME everywhere - but then, if you are still planning to use Fasttracks turnouts, I'd stick with those in staging as well since a) they will be better quality than Atlas and b) the more you build, the lower the average cost per turnout, In which case, stick with the ME COde 83 to match with the turnout rail.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
A-Men, Randy.