This probly has allready come up but witch is easyer to work with, more sturdy, and more scail?
Indeed, if you do a search of the forums you’ll see several discussions on this topic.
Generally there isn’t much difference as far as sturdiness or reliability, or one being easier to work with. Discussions usually comes down to code 100 being a bit oversized for general mainline trackage, but usually being cheaper than code 83, which is closer to correct scale sized rail. Code 83 is still a bit on the heavy side so it’s good for someone like me modelling iron ore railroading where large rails were needed for the heavy trains, but many “conventional” freight and passenger modellers actually prefer code 70 as being more correct in size and appearance.
It sometimes comes down to inertia…for many decades code 100 was the smallest HO rail you could get in flextrack and RTR track pieces, so many people who’ve been in the hobby a while have layouts with code 100 and don’t feel the need to change. I’ve seen plenty of pics of well laid and ballasted code 100 track that looks very realistic.
A topic not often brought up is width. Atlas code 83 looks good overall but is very wide compared to say Kato Unitrack which has a very narrow profile more like the prototype.
Assuming we are talking HO there is no question Code 83 is more scale than 100. Thanks to the wide variety of Code 83 now available in formats from flex to sectional, all manner of turnouts etc I suspect they rank equal in ease of use (I am not sure about specialty track such as prefab double slip switches, crossings at various angles and the like). Sturdy? David Barrow the famous Texas modeler changes his layout all the time and uses minimal ballast. he likes Code 100 for its inherent structural strength but he was using the track’s structure for purposes that most of us do not – he wasn’t laying it down on cork roadbed and fastening it in a permanent way. I suppose if your layous it subject to being moved or to huge changes in temp or humidity there might be some slight structural advantage to Code 100 but most of the strength is, I suspect, in the way the ties are attached to the rail and that is about the same between the two.
The only reasons I use Code 100 are 1) I bought a huge supply cheap from a guy who had an excess and had disassembled his new layout and 2) I still have plenty of old Rivarossi and other AHM type locos that have the super deep flanges that need Code 100. No question but that I’d go with 83 or maybe even Code 70 if I started totally fresh.
Dave Nelson
First, both have legitimate uses. It’s not, “A versus B,” so much as, ‘Where can each be used to correct advantage?’
Code 100 is oversize for any rail ever laid on railroad ties in the United States - that (in)famous PRR 155#/yd stuff, used only on a few thousand feet of track on Horseshoe Curve, would scale to an honest Code 93. I’ve used a lot on my current layout, but only in the Netherworld - that labyrinth of staging yards and hidden thoroughfares representing the 99+% of Japan that I’m NOT trying to model.
In American HO (and in my modeling) Code 83 is the right height for modern trackwork, including industrial leads and turnouts. Happily for all concerned, there is a wide selection of sectional and flex track as well as a sizeable inventory of specialwork from various manufacturers. Working with it (Atlas concrete-tie flex) is neither more or less problematical than working with Code 100. I hand-lay specialwork on wood ties with spikes, so I’m not a good source of information regarding commercial product quality.
Modelers who are obsesso about prototype accuracy will use Code 70 for lightly-built branchlines, sidings and so forth - it scales out in the 100-115#/yd area. Really old, dilapidated and temporary-use track might go down to Code 55. For my purposes, these small sections are fine for my 762mm gauge logger, but no standard JNR cars will ever be seen standing on anything lighter than Code 70.
While Code 40 rail is available, for American Standard Gauge HO modeling it’s way too light for much of anything laid in the last 125 years. I might use some, if I detail a significant part of my coal mine push-car tramways, but it will be cosmetic, not operational. (How wold you animate the motive power - a hard-hat miner with twin 0-5-0 couplers?)
Summarizing; if you want bomb-proof trackage with no
An interesting comparison would be to look over at what the 2 rail O scale people use. I’m going to this open house on Friday (I live 5 minutes away, lucky me). If you look at their track, I’m not really sure if the rail height would be that much different from code 83 in HO.
However, my favorite HO layout of all time “Chicago and West Coast Railroad” uses code 100 painted brown which looks very nice as well. Of course this is a DC layout so painting track like this might not be an option for me since I am running DCC. I have had bad experiences painting my track on my DCC layout in the past. Tons of stalling due to poor electrical contact.
But it looks great.
