Both work well. If you have some really old cars and engines, the 100 would fit the wheel flanges better. Many will say that 83 looks better. Both work well if laid correctly, and both cause problems if not. Having a flat road bed is important and then laying it with out kinks, either sideways or on grades.
I prefer code 83. But, that’s just a personal preference. The Atlas code 83 has molded brown ties, instead of black. And the “spikes” are smaller than the code 100. If you’re running fairly new equipment, they should have smaller flanges, and you shouldn’t have any problems.
I agree[tup]
I did Phase 1 of my layout with code 100, and I switched to code 83 for phase 2. I’m sold on code 83. It just looks better to me, and the dimensions are closer to prototype track. I have some older “pizza-cutter” wheels on some of my rolling stock, and they work fine on code 83. (To be fair, I’ve got some “deep-dish” pizza-cutter wheels on a couple of old Rivarossi engines which won’t even run on code 100.)
I also find it easier to ballast code 83 track. The thicker ties of code 100, which also seem to be spaced a bit closer, make the ballasting effort more difficult. That’s just my opinion, though.
Code 100, for some reason, is a bit cheaper.
My first inclination was to respond that it doesn’t matter which Code you use. I started with Code 100 years ago, then moved to Code 83. Now, I have both on my layout with transition track in between.
Which is more manageable for a beginner? When you ask it that way, I would say Code 100. It is a little less fragile than Code 83, mainly because the ties are thicker and the plastic spikes are bigger so they hold the rails more firmly.
However, Code 83 offers a greater variety of track as you progress with the hobby. For example, curved turnouts are more readily available in Code 83. The Walthers turntables are set up for Code 83 track. Wye tracks and 3-way turnouts are available in Code 83.
So, you can start with Code 100, but my bet is that you will move to Code 83 sooner or later.
Rich
One advantage of code 83 - besides it looking more realistic etc. - is that you can use Walthers / Shinohara turnouts if you wish. Atlas only makes a couple of turnouts in their line, while Walthers code 83 has turnouts from No. 4 to No. 10, wyes, curved turnouts etc. Peco also makes US-style code 83 turnouts.
However, for a beginner (or anyone else for that matter) I’d certainly recommend looking at Kato’s HO Unitrack, which is also code 83. It has nice narrow-profile track that looks realistic, and is very easy to use compared to laying cork roadbed and cutting flextrack etc.
I have both. I started by building a code 83 4x8 for the grandchildren’s Thomas the Tank Engine. The Thomas stuff has big flanges and didn’t do well on the code 83, so as I made the layout bigger I used code 100. Now that two of the three grandchildren prefer prototypical trains, it doesn’t matter, though the three year old still gives Thomas and Hogwarts a lot of activity. I have stayed with code 100.
Welcome to the forum, my friend, welcome to the forum.
Even though I had experience with trackwork on club layouts when I began building my first home layout I decided to cut my teeth on Code 100 track. I soon tired of it and on my second layout I went to Code 83 and Code 70. Were I to return to HO-Scale I would go the Code 83–Code 70 route and even with Code 55 in some locations.
Even though you are a beginner I don’t think you would find Code 83 any more difficult to work with than Code 100 and you will eventually find it more appealing than Code 100. Lotsa luck on construction of your first layout.
Code 100 is more manageable for my budget, but I would like to move to Code 83 at some point in the future. Thinking of doing a module using it.
I’m using Code 83 on the layout I’m building currently. To me, 83 looks so much more realistic, especially for up close views and photographs. I’m using a combination of Atlas Code 83, with Peco Code 83 “Insulfrog” turnouts.
Old geezer; in HO modular club 6 yrs. We used Atlas Code 100 flex & t/os. Found the t/os to be troublesome. Later, when club dis-banded, smaller one started, we went with PECO Code 100 flex and t/os and NEVER regretted doing so! They make FINE products and we were willing to pay more for them, becaues they lasted longer and worked better. You certainly get what you pay for. My 2 cents. TTFN. …Old Tom aka papasmurf in NH
.
I’m just starting a ho layout again. I have alot n/s short track that I purchased many years ago all code 100. Hate too waste it, but after looking at what is out there, the most variety is with the code 83. I hear that the long straight length of track are easier to work with bending curves and such. Maybe I can work it all in some how. If you are not going to have fancy turnouts code 100 would work fine.
Goodluck Lippy
I am a year into the hobby, and about 9 months into my layout. So, I am new. I chose Code 83. I like taking photos, and the 100 just looks way too tall. Rails just are not that tall.
I am sure the 100 works fine, I have had zero problems with the 83.