I’m beginning an expansion of my layout. Doubling it, in fact. [:P] (Through reasons which I’ll never understand, I wound up with a wife who says, “Honey, if you need more space for trains, why don’t you take the big room in the basement too?”)
My current layout is all Atlas code 100. Am thinking of doing Code 83 on the new section. Pros and cons?? Thanks for any input.
I can’t think of a con off hand, but I can think of a pro…you’ll have better looking rails sized-wise in your images.
Not again! The MR forum was filled with the code 100 vs 83 discussion just a week or so ago. Please search for it.
Mark
The biggest Pro of course is it simply looks more realistic and better. Cons are that it is slightly, very slightly more expensive in most brands, and if you’re running ancient, really old rolling stock you may have issues with flange depth (even then it’s usually only on the “toy” stuff like old bachmann and tyco stuff), but that is a very very rare problem.
This thread provided me with plenty of info before I decided.
http://www.trains.com/TRC/CS/forums/1063592/ShowPost.aspx
Magnus
I recently faced the exact same dilema. For me the decision was clear and arrived as an epiphany, I decided to abandon the original layout in lieu of a new one made with code 83. I’m not suggesting that you should start over; my original layout was the first I ever built and I knew that I would do better on my second. I plan to dismantle it and salvage the flex track and turnouts and use them for my future staging yard which will be out of view.
There are transition joiners that you can use in order to join code 83 and 100 to each other, but since code 83 is .017 shorter than code 100 you’ll have to shim the road bed at the uncommon joints.
Keep in mind that your code 100 black ties will look odd with the simulated wood or concrete ties of code 83 and once your work is complete you may find your self ripping up your old code 100 and replacing it with code 83. I would use a little dish soap and warm water to loosen the track and ballast from the roadbed making sure to remove the track nails if any. Fortunately for me I pulled all of the track nails after my ballast work dried so my salvage work should go very smoothly. I’m sure your work will be equally as easy and rewarding.
For me, there is no ‘versus.’ I use Code 83 flex (with concrete ties - because that was what my prototype used) for visible track, and code 100 where it can’t be seen. I already have an ‘end of the railroad’ module laid with Code 100 rail which will be used ‘as-is’ when construction reaches the point where it will be appropriate.
In your situation, simply make the transition as unobtrusive as possible, and paint/weather the rail. A good coat of grey-black grunge will shrink rail height visually, if not actually.
FWIW, prototype railroads frequently build specialwork on main tracks, busy yard throats and such with heavier rail, to reduce maintenance.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I think some of it depends on what kind of railroad you model and whether you are going to do any model photography. I saw a really beautiful large N&W layout with may large N&W engines and I was surprised to find out it was code 100. With good scenery and ballasting it was hard to tell. I think code 100 looks more obviously oversized in photographs. If you are modeling lighter equipment then the smaller size becomes more important. - Nevin
I would use code 83 in a heart-beat, except I want to run my old British trains, so stick with 100. If it were not for that I would change.
Mark’s right–this ‘argument’ seems to pop up at least twice a year on the forum. I’ve got a combo on the Yuba River Sub–code 100 on the main and code 83 in the yards. Main reason for code 100 is that I have some European equipment that I occasionally run, and it has the deeper NEM flanges. However, with painting and ballasting, I find it hard to tell the difference between the two. And I’ve DEFINITELY found that my Shinohara code 100 turnouts are a lot sturdier than the Walthers/Sinohara code 83 turnouts.
Frankly, I think the ‘argument’ boils down to what you’re more comfortable with.
Tom
You could do the new section in code 83, it’s easy enough to use Walthers transition track sections.
If anybody asks about the difference in rail height (which isn’t all that noticeable anyway), just say that the section of the layout using code 83 represents trackage that was originally built by a rival railroad that your railroad bought out years ago, but that your railroad never got around to replacing the other railroad’s lighter track.
code 83 is THE choice for more prototypical rail and still handle deep flanges. Code 70 cannot.
Code 100 is closer to the rail size used on the pennsy on one of their mainline stretches but is a very large rail. Not commonly used elsewhere prototypically.
By far choose code 83. I have my layout with code 100 and a diorama with code 83, and the Diorama looks alot better.
Nevin’s exactly right. Code 100 track, when nicely painted and weathered, looks just as good from a normal standing position as does code 83 track on a typical layout.
But if you have high benchwork so the trains are up close, you will start to notice the out-of-scale track. And if you photograph the layout near railfan eye level at all, those Atlas code 100 spikeheads will look like cantalopes!
Well said as usual Joe,
I think you have every reason to go code 83 - it does look better and the molded in spike detail looks much finer. Why use weathering and paint to hide the gross details on code 100. Code 83 isn’t that much more expensive and the look is with the modest cost. I think you will agree. If you need to save money, get Atlas code 83 track and toss in some Walthers (made by Shinohara) or Peco code 83 turnouts where you need them.
OK. Code 83 it is. I love how it looks with the thinner ties.
And sorry for restarting an OLD topic. I haven’t had much luck with the search engine here, so didn’t search before posting… and the threads you folks directed me to were loaded with more than I ever wanted to know on the subject. Thanks all.
I would use code 83 if starting today on a new layout. That said, my current ATSF in Oklahoma was started in 1988, the trackwork was pretty much done by 1993 or 4, and it is all code 100. No way will I rip up over 250 switches, some of them scratchbuilt, or three decks of code 100 just to be “in”. In the grand scheme of things, with a layout that pretty much complete, scenery and all, it doesn’t make that much difference.
I have a few industrial spurs with code 70, but the rest is code 100 and it will stay that way. My interest is operation more than building layouts.
Bob
I think everybody forgot about the obvious CON with using Code 83 on a layout that all ready has Code 100 on it. Once all that Code 83 is layed you are really going to want to rip up all that old Code 100 track. You can say you won’t but eventually you will.
What ever you do, don’t let a few put you off asking questions. If it were against forum rules to pose a question that had been asked before there would be no activity on this forum. With the possible exception of Spacemouse, who always asks off-beat questions, everything else has been asked multiple times. Keep on posting, there are always some that will benefit from the re-hash of an old question.
Are you running European stuff? Everything produced in the past 20 years in North America has small flanges…
David B