I had a large layout in a separate building at my previous house (24 X 40) and the remains of it is still there. I still have a box+ (60 pc.) of Code 100 flex and a half dozen turnouts that were meant for expansion. (At some point I should probably “harvest” things especially at least a couple dozen Peco Code 100 turnouts.)
Starting a new layout in what will be a smaller footprint, do I use the extra Code 100 and just add more 100 turnouts or go entirely to 83 for the realism? Or, get 83 turnouts for yard areas and use the 100 for mainline? It seems like a waste of a lot of track to switch.
I know it is a matter of preference and adherence to realistic rail size, but I’d like some opinions on that vs. frugality.
Your decision rests entirely on the weight you assign to the various criteria that YOU have for a pleasing experience. Both codes are easy to work with, but one looks a lot better in images where one gets the camera lens, if you’ll ever take photos, down close to the rails.
There’s no doubt here, in my second layout years ago, that I’m using a scale weight of rails that never existed in the commercial real world of railroading. Take a look:
Ouch, right?
So, you’ll have to pick one or the other, or is cost currently an issue? Which criterion to constructing a pleasing and functional toy railroad is most important to you?
When I built my layout I used code 100 in hidden areas and code 83 where the track was viewable. I made all the transitions in the hidden portion. I have several code 100 turnouts in the hidden area also.
Besides the desire to not “waste” the track and therefore money but I’m really big on functionality and dependability. I wonder if the Code 100 is more forgiving operationally.
(I can easily afford to waste it, but I do have a wife that always tells people “I can never find gifts for him because if he wants something, he just goes out and buys it.” - said with more than a little tone of disapproval.)
Due my dependability concerns I don’t plan to have much, if any, hidden trackage so I don’t know how I could use much of the larger rail. That would be a huge amount of staging.
If the .017” difference in rail height doesn’t bother you go with the code 100 track. I’ve run my trains on both 100 and 83 for years and I’ve never noticed any difference in reliability.
Personally, I would use what CAN be used. Even if it meant delaying construction and pondering how I might shoehorn six or seven sticks of the Code 100, I would work on it for at least a weekend.
The received wisdom is that Code 100 is more forgiving, or more reliable, because some of us still use pizza-cutter flanges, even if just on the odd nostalgic item of rolling stock that a favourite uncle gave us. I currently have about 6 sticks of it in a ‘no-lix’ running around my room walls on two sides to get down to staging, but the ladder down there is Code 83. Again, I wanted more realism because I have a secondary passion of taking images close to my creations, with the lens at head height for a realistic human view.
If you are using modern RP-25 compliant wheelsets, Code 100 is unnecessary if you’re looking to ‘reliability’ to save you some pretzeling to extract a derailed item from somewhere difficult. Well-laid Code 70 would serve you in that case.
Once painted and ballasted, the difference is hardly noticeable. Usually a dead giveaway with N scale is how high the rail is - Code 80 is the N scale world equivalent of Code 100 in HO, although it is even more oversize realtive to scale than HO Code 100 is. But I have seen some photos where it is impossible to tell the scale and then it turns out it was N and Code 80 rail, not Code 55.
Since you probably have more than enough flex track, I’d probably stick with the Code 100 you have on hand.
Unless it bothers you, I would use what you have. If it really bothers you then switch, because it always will.
Personally, I always use what works best. Currently, for my S scale layout I am using code 138 becuse it is robust and has the best turnouts available. It’s oversized, but I don’t really notice it when running trains.
Besides, unless you are into Proto87 your wheels are oversized anyway.
The wheels I chose were the 33" (0.110" tread width) wheels.
While running the coal drag with 24 of these vintage cars I noticed that there was shorting happening over some of the Atlas (unpowered frog) Snap Switches from the hoppers.
These vintage cars have metal frames that can cause shorts when paired with metal trucks, couplers and mounting hardware. Knowing this I specifically went with all plastic hardware, the Accurail plastic trucks and Intermountain metal wheels. I kept the Kadee #5 metal couplers.
I brought out my digital caliper and measured all the wheels. Some were over width by as much as 0.05". That might not seem so much but it was enough to cause shorts.
The 0.110" wheels were replaced with their “Semi-Scale” (0.088") which solved the problem.
The track height of the code 100 was not an issue.
I started my layout with code 100 then switched to code 83. If I was starting over, I would go with code 100. The area of the layout that has code 100 track and switches seems to have fewer problems. Derailments are non-existent, even through switches. Maybe it’s the flanges on the wheels. Most of my rolling stock and engines are from the 1990s.
