I am doing some layout planning for my new model railroad. My layout is a 2 X 8 layout. It is made of two, two by four modules. The subroadbed is 3/4 inch birch plywood. The roadbed is 1/4 inch lauan plywood.
I am struggling between Atlas code 100 or Atas code 83 track to use. With the roadbed being 1/4 lauan, would I be better to use Atlas Code 100 track components or Atlas Code 83 track components. My concern is that the code 83 track will show vertical deflections after ballast is glued. Also I am concerned about the fragileness of code 83 compared to the code 100 as to durability.
What do you think? Am I Making Too Big of A Deal About This?
IMHO, I’ve used HO scale code 83 track from Peco, Atlas on my former shelf layouts and found them to be as tough and durable as Code 100 trackage. The only facet that I find “slightly” more challenging with 83 is soldering feeder wires between sections, and even then for a klutz like me it just takes a little extra care and time.
Addtionaly, you want to make certain that none of your rolling stock have the “Pizza Cutter” flanged wheels. The jolts don’t look pretty when these wheels hit turnout frogs.
I get the impression that you like code 83. Since you are concerned about vertical deflections, experiment on a small section. Lay down and secure a 3 ft. code 83 flex track section, ballast it, then judge the appearance for yourself.
You received some good responses on the other related thread.
So…Stop hesitating and go for it! Try the experiment and post your results on the forum. IMHO, you’ll be OK.
I am sorry Cuyama that I caused you any discomfort by still struggling with this issue. Money is tight in my finances and I am trying to make good choices.
However, WCU, by continuing to press for answers here, and disregarding those offered by senior modellers, are you not giving the impression of someone who is hoping to get an answer he likes? I would have to say you are.
Why continue to demure and ask questions of people you don’t know, and whom you don’t appear to trust (judging by your latest question on the subject above) if you are getting the same answer, or if you don’t accept the ones proffered? If you don’t like what you read, or mistrust it, go to another source in the hope of reading an answer that is in keeping with your apparent biases on the subject.
Otherwise, the courteous thing to do would be to acknowledge the contributions to your education from several members over the past weeks and get on with your own development.
I take it that this is your first attempt at a model railroad. Since you say that money is tight, I think I’d suggest that you use the Atlas code 100 items. Looking at the list prices in the Walthers catalog, a piece of code 100 flextrack is about 80 cents cheaper than the code 83 equivalent, and a #6 code 100 turnout is about $2.50 less than the code 83 equivalent. Once the track is painted and ballasted, the difference between the two codes will be small.
Given the proposed size of your available space, your total investment in track components will probably not be that large in relation to other stuff that you’ll need.
There’s really nothing fragile about Atlas Code 83, it’s very sturdy. It also will look much better than Code 100, and the cost between the two is really negligible. I can’t imagine any warping or problems from ballast on Code 83 Atlas track.
I would say, since money is an issue, it sounds like what you have may be somewhat “overbuilt”. 3/4" plywood with 1/4" plywood roadbed = 1" of plywood…it would easily be sturdy enough for you to walk on!! HO scale trains don’t really weigh all that much. 1/2" plywood, properly braced underneath, should work great. For roadbed you could use cork or “Ribbonrail”, or use “click track” as offered by Kato, Bachmann or Atlas with the roadbed installed. You could also look into Woodland Scenics foam risers, so you don’t have to try to cut the plywood to get scenes below tracklevel.
So all you were asking for was for someone to repeat once more : “there is very little difference between the two choices - use whatever you like the best - if you want to use code 100, then use code 100” ?
You have very solid support. I think you could use code 70 or 55 with no problems. The engines aren’t that heavy. But since you’re worried, I recommend you use code 100. This is a hobby and there’s no fun in it if you’re worrying about it.
Besides the visual difference isn’t that great and with the oversized wheels we use you can make the case that they look better on larger track.
My thinking is since it’s a 2x8, you’ll probably do more detailing than a larger layout. No matter how much you detail code 100, you can’t hide the ugly spike heads and over sized rail. I would go with the 83. (what I’m using) What are you talking? About $20-$30 more dollars for a 2x8? Code 83 just looks a lot better.(and works fine)[2c]
That’s the very part I get stuck on, is the realism. I was having to stick with N scale but I’ve recently convinced the significant other to let me have the back room as my train room, so long as I make the one of the two closet doors accesible. That of course threw me back into the N or HO scale loop, but I’m leaning towards HO. I like the greater realism, like with track. After posting and reading responses though I was sort of told the same thing, I had decent idea’s but was advized to take a step back and look where I was putting emphasis. As some senoir, and therefore very well experienced modelers pointed out, in previous posts of ideas I was probably putting too much emphasis on certian things, especially for my first layout. Now only if my LTS would sell HO track in some of the smaller codes like 70 and 55. Heck I don’t even think they keep C100 instock I think they just have C83.
Why not get the best of both worlds? Use Code 100 on the main lines and Code 83 or 55 on the branch lines and yards? That is exactly what I’ve done. My layout is quite a bit larger than yours, but the look is great, and very prototypical. You can scenic the layout to bring more of a focus point on the yards and there you can have the more detailed Code 83 track work. It’s just a thought of another newbie, but it works for me!!! Jay
Well…It looks like you got what you wanted. Wait long enough and someone will eventually agree with what you wanted all along. But don’t invite me over to see your layout. Code 100 is soooooo yesterday.[:)]
I started to go to code55 for my main—mind, branchline/shortline. The yards and some spurs I’m looking more code40ish----
I wonder if one can define what they are looking for based on what era, timeframe or even historical incidents, they are modeling—for an example I’m modeling an era when my protolanced RR was being refurbished with better—but light --rail after the CN abandoned this particular line in the downsizing during the 1970’s/80’s.
If you take your time during the tracklaying, any of the rail sizes will work just fine. Yes, c100 is the easyist to work with. What era are you modeling. Branch line or main. These will also play a part in what code you should chose. I have c100, c83, c70 and c55 on my layout. c100 and 83 in the holding tracks, c70 and 55 on main and sidings. Mine is a small midwest line that would have light rail on the main. If you are modeling a modern day busy main line, c100 would look great { exept for the large black frogs and guardrails on the atlas turnouts }.
In the end, it is your choice. Look at photos in MR, etc. You will find layouts with all rail sizes. See what you like and run with it.
My take on this was that he received an answer that was positive, as opposed to the “negative” answers he felt he was getting. Not that he got an answer that agreed with what he wanted in the first place.
So far as code 100 being “so yesterday”, that’s your opinion. There is nothing wrong with code 100 for a beginner’s layout, if that is what he’s doing. There is a lot of it still being sold, there is adequate variety in the available track components, if it is painted and ballasted it is hard to tell the difference, and if the railroad is built high enough you can’t tell what was used anyway. And since he says money is tight, there is some minor cost savings.
And, if you refuse his invite to come over to see his railroad and possibly offer him some of your expert advice, then you have done him a dis-service.
If money is the issue, use the code 100 and paint the sides of the rails rusty color and mix that color with dark brown and black. It will fade out very well and look almost normal if done correctly.
WCU, it is what I did, both because I didn’t know any better, and because it was available locally. Here is how it turned out. Would you say it is too large or clunky?
I am sorry if my message to you was harsh. I hoped it would be a way to reframe the subject for you, but if it hurt you, I apologize.
