No I do NOT intend or desire to re-ignite the Atlas track discussions!
But yesterday at Walthers Showroom they were putting a brand new product line on the shelf – Code 100 nickle silver track from LifeLike, including 3 ft flex track but also sectional straight and curved track, turnouts, and the like. The fellow at the counter was unsure if LifeLike/Walthers intends on keeping the HO steel rail track line going (they had plenty on display for sale), but did say the LifeLike NS line turnouts would cost less than Atlas. This being LifeLike I do not anticipate that it will ever be a high end line such as Code 83 etc.
And they had many boxes of the nickle silver Code 100 flex track for those in need of that product. Just in case someone is interested.
Sometimes I have second thoughts about why I even switched from c100 to c83. Two of my youngest Grandson’s have all my c100 Atlas flex and turnouts, that I had most new and on the 6x12 layout they have that my son and I are building for them, even at some kid speeds, they are not derailing. Makes me wonder! [(-D] They are NS.
The only reason that I went to Code 83 was because of the availability of specialty track like double crossovers and 3-ways. Now, I wish that I didn’t buy any of those either. When Walthers first introduced the 130’ indexed turntable, the bridge track was Code 83, so that pretty much set the tone.
While anyone can say what they want about c100 track
I have quite a number of the Walthers/Shinohara c83 double curved turnouts & track on my current layout that has over 4000 feet of track down so far!
And I have had more problems with the c83 track/turnouts than I ever had with the 3000 plus feet of c100 track on the layout!
And as for looks - I can’t see any difference!
Although - I am NOT looking at the track - I am operating the trains - doing switching and havign a grand time with the rest of the Group making my layout come alive!
I never could understand those that stand around and nit-pick the looks of track!
Appearently they don’t like Operations - just nit-picking!
I use ME code 100 flex track. When ballasted & weathered you can’t tell it’s code 100. We are only talking .017 difference. That was my point gap in my distributer back in the day. I have my layout in an unheated attic & the more mass I have the less expansion & shrinkage problems I have. I have a short N scale shelf layout with ,I think, code 80 track & it ends up looking like a pretzel.
All this talk about c100 has got me wondering if maybe I should convert my staging yards to c100. I don’t have alot of derailments on my turnouts, but they do occassionally happen and it is especially annoying when it happens in a staging yard. My turnouts are #8s and I didn’t think they made those in c100 but I just looked at Walthers website and I couldn’t even find #6s. Does Atlas make a #6 in c100. I might consider changing if they made a #6, but I won’t go with the snap switches which I think are 4.5 if memory serves.
Edit: Nevermind. I just changed my search parameters and saw Atlas does make a #8 in c100.
LION uses code 100. (Oh, yeah, him already asid that) By the time you slobber paint all over it and throw down some ballast, nobody can tell the difference anyway.
LION is also prone to soldering leads inside the gauge if need by, and that extra 0.017" might (or might knot) make a difference. If it is a problem I can reheat the solder or else file it down, depending on which tool is the closest.
LION had bought Model Power track on the cheap, and on the PRICE, but him likes it better than Atlas anyway. And give the way the LIONS tned to abuse trtacks, it is a wonder that I ever have any Dremmel cut-off wheels on hand!
Code 83 or code 70 may be wasted on some who don’t care about appearance or can’t appreciate the way it looks compared to code 100. No worries. But the smaller code can be made to operate just as reliably with a little care and effort.
Me, I factor cost and appearance into the equations, which is why I used code 100 in staging yards where appearance isn’t as important, and then use the code 83 or 70 out in the visible portions of the layout.
Jim,Everybody has their druthers but,on Slate Creek its code 100…
I have enough experience to know under normal operation viewing,ballast and painted C100 doesn’t look that bigger then C83…C70 is by far the best choice for rail size.
Never could quite understand how C70 lost out to C83.
Larry, yes, everyone has their druthers. It just kinda seemed people felt they needed to make excuses for using code 100. They don’t. Use what you like and be happy.
As for code 83 vs 100, with Atlas track I’d have to agree … their code 83 rail looks almost the same as their code 100 because the top of the rail appears to be just about as wide. Thats a disapointment I’ve had with their code 83. Other brands of code 83 is a bit finer and so the difference is more noticable. And of course as you noted, code 70 even more noticable.
I’m going to guess that Code 70 lost out because at the time, there were still too many pieces of rolling stock adn locomotives with deeper than RP25 flanges that just wouldn’t work on Code 70 rail that was either hand-spiked or had molded in plastic spikes with enough volume to make them actually hold and not just break off. A little ahead of its time, I’d say. Soldering to PC ties wasn;t happening yet, and there weren;t a lot of glue choices - maybe Goo, I think I read an old article where Goo was used to lay fine rail, maybe Code 40 back in the early N scale days or something similar. Guess no one had thought of Barge Cement - what CV recommends for their turnout kits - because that stuff has been around a very long time.
Even some of the intermediate Rivarossi stuff won’t work well on Code 83 - the early stuff with the huge flanges, not a chance, but later stuff had more than RP25 but not quite as bad - that runs but does strike the spikeheads on Atlas Code 83.
I’ve had no problem with reliable trackwork using Code 83, always Atlas. Forwards, backwards, warp speed - anything and everything will traverse my layout without derailing (anything that can handle my curves and turnouts - no long wheelbase 8 or 10 driver steamer will negotiate my curves on the current layout). Previous layout was the same way, and with 32" radius curves it could handle anything, I ran full length 85 foot passenger cars in trains at speeds that would have smeared any passengers up against the outside wall, pulling and pushing, with no derailments as a test. The other trick was to take a truck and tune it up and make it free rolling enough to complete at least one circuit of the layout - push too hard and it would fly off like a Lionel train, but get it right and it would whiz all the way around to the starting point and sometimes another halfway.
The only thing I do when layoing track is carefully sight along it to make sure I am not introducing any kinks
While anyone can say what they want about c100 track
I have quite a number of the Walthers/Shinohara c83 double curved turnouts & track on my current layout that has over 4000 feet of track down so far!
And I have had more problems with the c83 track/turnouts than I ever had with the 3000 plus feet of c100 track on the layout!
And as for looks - I can’t see any difference!
Although - I am NOT looking at the track - I am operating the trains - doing switching and havign a grand time with the rest of the Group making my layout come alive!
I never could understand those that stand around and nit-pick the looks of track!
Appearently they don’t like Operations - just nit-picking!