This may be my imagination but my staging yard is Atlas code 100 with Atlas #6 turnouts and my layout is code 83 with some code 70. The track in the staging yard seens to stay cleaner and is less prone to derailments than the code 83. The code 83 and 70 seems a bit more tempermental and the turnouts behave better. While the smaller rail looks better there is a section of code 100 that is painted and it doesn’t look much worse than the painted 83. Anyone else have similar observations? - Nevin
I think you may have answered your own question. While 83/70 looks “better”, 100 being larger, keeps things on the rails a little better. 70/83 flextrack , while not a scientific test, is flimsier than the 100 variety.
At the model RR club, we run 100 “behind the scenes” and 83 where we can see it and be on the lookout for problems.
i have code 100 track. is that prototypical.
Not really. It scales out to a bit larger than the ultra-heavy 155 pounds per yard rail that PRR used for only a few years and only on their Horseshoe Curve. The extra installation cost was not justified by extended life and reduced maintenance as they had hoped.
If code 83 is so good WHY doesn’t everyone use it in their staging tracks and hidden areas???
BOB H Clarion, PA
I use code 100 and love it.
I’m using 83 everwhere, simply because I don’t have some huge old stock of 100 to use in my hidden areas. And if I’m going to buy all new, why bother with the trouble of shimming up the 83 to join the hidden 100? Now, if I had a few boxes of Code 100 flex laying around gathering dust, I’d probably use it in the hidden areas to save money.
–Randy
I use both 83 and 100. If I had it to do all over again, I might just use all 100 because of the convenience of it.
I know cefinkjr already mentioned it is not really prototypical - this chart (Table 2, midway in the page) will give you an idea of which prototype rail sizes correspond to HO rail height
http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-15_1.html
I believe 140 lb/yd (or is it now 141 lb/yd?) is becoming a very common rail size, mostly due to the new standard of 286 klb railcar loadings - that’s code 83 rail (well, I guess it would be code 84 if there was such a thing). I wonder if we’ll need code 87 if the AAR goes to 310 klb loadings? Also note AREA 100 rail - that’s close to HO code 70 (which is available, and used a lot for modeling sidings or lightweight branchlines)
When the prototype goes to AAR 500klb loading then code 100 will be the standard [:p]
If the trend for heavier freight cars continues (prototypes) then are just might be ahead of the curve.
I used 83 on the visible track and 100 in staging. The only reason I chose code 100 for staging was price; per each piece of flextrack and each turnout the lowest price I could find was on code 100. I refuse to use code 100 for visible track in HO because I find it to be unrealistic no matter how it’s weathered and ballasted.
Appearance isn’t all about the size of the rail. In addition to the rail being oversized, most brands of code 100 lack scale tie and spike detail and have rail of an unrealistic cross section.
Hello guys,
I’m actually wondering now.
I’m just about to start my layout and had planned on using Code 83. After reading this thread, I’m not 100% sure.
I like the realistic look of code 83 and planned to use for main line and branch routes. For industrial sidings I planned on using code 75.
Can those of you using code 83 chime in with some more details please as far as the types of problems you’ve encountered.
Antonio,
I use code 83 exclusively with no problems. I’ve had track down in the basement for the last year and a half. The only problem I’ve encountered is one switch that shifted it’s position during a transition from winter to spring.
As long as the wheels are in gauge, I have zero derailments. Everything gets IM replacement wheels before it hits the rails.
Tom
Price & durability. Those nice looking scale “spikes” break a whole lot easier than the good old tab “spikes” on the code 100.
I use code 100–mixture of Atlas and Sinohara on the main, and code 83 in the yards. Am seriously thinking of ripping out the code 83 and replacing it with code 100. Why? Darned if I know–but I just like the heft and feel of code 100 better. And despite what you hear, when it’s weathered and ballasted, I dare anyone to tell the difference. My friends sure can’t, and they’ve been model railroading as long as I have, and we ALL started right after electricity was invented!
Tom
Everything runs on 100 code. Some engines were made with heavy flanges so they go bumpty bump on the lighter but more correct codes.
None. There is a growing body of (what I consider to be) internet rumors about the pitfalls of using closer to scale track. Especially if you’re using Atlas 83, there is no more work involved in using code 83 and I’ve found no durability issues.
I actually find smaller rail easier to work with because of how much easier it is to cut with rail nippers (or my favorite - metal shears), and it takes somewhat less time to heat smaller rail to solder it, lessening the chance to melt plastic ties.
Fiatfan, WP8THSUB
Thanks guys,
I appreciate your input. I notice that suddenly there seems to be a number of posts that seem “anti-Code 83” and wondered if there was a cause for concern.
I won’t have to worry about deep flanges. My HO locomotives are Proto 1K and 2K, Athearn, Atlas, Stewart, and Model Power.
All of my freight cars are Athearn, and MDC/Roundhouse.
The only equipment that has deep flanges is my 4 car set of Bachmann Metroliners, which I’m currently (yes slowly) upgrading and repainting into Penn Central. Due to the odd sized diameter of the axles, it’s hard to find wheel/axle sets that will fit in the truck housing.
I know it’s going to be a little tougher for me to solder jumper wires between rail joints, but with practice I should be o.k.
I appreciate the input. Would like to read more, for or against smaller rail sizes. It is good to view both sides of the issues. Just from reading the above posts, I now know that Code 83 track can be more fragile so it should be handled with great care.
High Greens!
The advantage of code 100 is price and possibly durability. The advantage of code 83 is selection: Walters’ #10 turnout and #8 double slip switch, although produced by Shinohara, is not available in code 100. You would have to shim these turnouts with posterboard or use transition pieces with code 100.
I would suggest reversing that setup. Code 100 is ideal for modern and/or high speed mainlines. If you look at areas like the NEC, the rails are much “thicker” than other railroads which will more than likely take on the appearance of code 83 track.
Another explanation is that staging may not see as much “action” in terms of continuous operation and therefore the track stays cleaner longer. You’ll notice that more frequently used tracks get dirtier, faster.