OK, I know that you all are tired of reading the threads from this newbie. But I do need some honest answers and I can expect that from this site. I am so thankful.
OK, I have decided to use Atlas code 100 turnouts and Atlas code 100 flex track for my new modular 2 X 8 layout. I am following the domino approach suggested by David Barrow in Model Railroader. What problems long-term am I going to have with the Atals Code 100 turnouts? I will using DC cab control. Should I consider using Atlas code 83 instead of the Atlas code 100? Please be direct and honest with me. I would want to know the truth now before I invest my hard-earned money into this project. Please help
I never tire of meeting newbies. This is a place to learn. That I learned something last year should not bother those who learned it 20 years ago. We need to learn things when they are an issue.
When I started I used code 83. I thought it looked better. Code 100 will run better andfwill run older equipment. With a modular, you need to be the same as the other modules you connect with.
Hi wcu boy: I agree with everything Art said. If you are going to use Atlas code 100 Custom Line switches, there are a couple of things you can do to make them more reliable. I have 60 some on my layout and God knows how many feet of flex track. The first concern is the area in front of the point of the frog. When a wheel hits that area, it drops down like it just hit a small ditch. Then when it hits the frog, it jumps up. Very disconcerting. I made a small triangle of .010 styrene and CA’d it in the gap. Now the wheel will have a smooth transition. The other concern is the pivot points of the point rails. Older switches used rivets for the pivot points. The new ones have what I would call small flat pieces for the pivot. I found that after the rails were painted and ballasted, I had intermittant power to the point rails. The pivot points were the culprits. To remedy this, I added feeders to both point rails. That took care of that problem. There is one other concern, sometimes the frog itself is a little too high. If it is, just take a file and take some material off the frog. Now, I don’t have any problems with my switches. Hope this helps.
If you plan on joining your modules to ones built by others such as in a club setting, then use whatever that club uses for track. My local HO modular club uses code 100. If you are only building for yourself, then use code 83 as it has a much better scale look. I have found no difference between the reliability or trackability of 83 vs 100. Any track you get will have some quirks. If I were starting fresh I would use code 83, such as it is I have more than enough 100 for my current project so that is what I am using now.
I’d suggest going with the Code 83. It is only rather old (and generally European-made) equipment that had flanges so deep that it required Code 100. Virtually everything on the market today will operate well on Code 83, and the appearance will just be better. The diffference may be most noticable when you go to take photographs of that completed scene, but even to the eye that Code 100 will just look a little oversized after awhile. With the full variety of turnouts available in Code 83, it seems there should be little reason to use Code 100 on an all-new layout.
Code 100 is very good and seems to handle allot of different Locos with no issues. I am using the Atlas code 100 22" radius track and the flextrack and I can run just about anything. I avoid the atlas switches or snap switches. They did not do well in high traffic area with 6 axled diesels and large steam. That is my [2c]
The question you asked has been asked a lot but it is a good question and one that can be hard to ansewer. From the advice you have all ready gotten, you have good arguments for either way.
I will chime in with a few thoguhts on this as I went through the same debate. I went with code 100 myself which at the time, there were more switches and options avaible. Code 83 has really picked up on selection so that one isnt much of a factor. All though, Code 100 is still alot cheaper and that was an issue when I knew I was going through 400 feet of track and over 50 turnouts. I saved hundreds. I also had older equipment and preffered the durability of it. Code 100 was a good choice for me.
Something I have learned from being part of a modular club, the modules get beat up and dinged. No matter how hard you try, at some point during the loading and unloading process, or moveing them around, accididents will happen. We have found the Code 100 is much stornger and takes a better beating. A few guys in our club used 83 and after 3 years of shows and events, while everyone’s has a problem, the code 83 ones, have more when it comes to track condtions.
If you are doing dominos like that one gentlemans layout who went with the “stream line look” and no scenery and want to change them around as needed or desired, then I would be temped to say heck with looks, save a bunch of money and go with a stonger track and use 100.
The only way code 100 is better is it’s tougher - if you’re an 8 year old - but it’s also cheaper (why anyone still buys it).
Code 83 looks more realistic, and it’s an improved version @ todays ‘improved’ dollar.
My guess is once code 83 tooling costs have been paid off, code 100 will be discontinued - much like brass track. (When the price discrepancy disappeared no one wanted it).
So far, Micro-Engineering, Walthers, Peco, & Atlas offer code 83.