Is there any difference besides size between code 83, 70, and 100 flex track, after doing some reading i have decided to go with code 83 since it is said to be closest to scale when it comes to size. Can anyone give me some input on this subject? Thanks!!!
No, beside size of rail and tie color there really is no difference.
Basically: Code 100 would be for high traffic mainlines, COde 83 for regular traffic mainlines and code 70 for sidings and some yards. Code 40 for some yards.
The more traffic a set of rails saw, the heavier the rail was used in real life.
Code 83 is closest to scale of what is primarily used today.
Code 100 is used on layoutouts if you have older equipment that had “pizza cutter wheels” {Like little pizza cutters with deep flanges that would ride up on the ties of code 83 or lesser scale rail rather than the rail itself}
Use whatever you like, whatever has the best options in trackage for your pike, whatever is best available to you, or a combination or them as suggested applications above…
I agree with galaxy, code 83 is pretty much the standard rail size used for most HO scale model railroads. Code 70 would probably be closer to the “scale” rail used by prototypes. Code 70 is not usually found in all hobby shops but can be ordered. A lot of individuals who use code 83 for mainline will use code 70 for industrial spurs and yards. Code 55 is obviously smaller. It depends upon what you are modeling. If you are modeling the 1930’s and a small branchline, code 55 would be appropriate. Have fun!![:D]
Happy New Year!![<:o)]
Nope, just the size. Depending on the manufacturer, the tie color might vary, and some brands are available with either ‘wood’ or ‘concrete’ ties.
It’s like a never-ending mantra “code 100 is too big, code 100 is too big” - I’ve seen plenty of layouts that have the track nicely painted and ballasted and it does NOT look too big. I’ve also seen prototype pictures where the rail looks to be WAY bigger than code 100 would scale out to be in HO, but it’s not. C0de 83 requires a little less effort to make it look good, and code 83 products are available from many different manufacturers, so it’s an easy choice to make. But code 100 can be made to look just as good.
–Randy
Speaking actual scale reduction of prototype rail size, Code 70 approximates 115 pound per yard rail - think USRA-era mainline standard. Code 83 is right in the 132-140 pound per yard range most used for new construction now.
The heaviest rail ever laid on a US railroad, Pennsylvania’s infamous 155 pound per yard (used only on a few thousand feet of track on the Horseshoe Curve) scales to an honest Code 93! Yes, Code 100 really is too big to accurately model ANY rail used under standard gauge rolling stock in the United States.
That said, I’ve laid my hidden track with Code 100, but all visible track will be Code 83 or smaller. Cost trumps appearance where the sun ain’t gonna shine.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I used Code 100 for the earlier section of my layout, and made the change to Code 83 for the newer parts. I’m much happier with the Code 83. I do have a lot of older cars with exaggerated wheel flanges, which is why I went with Code 100 in the first place, but I’ve had no difficulty running them on Code 83. I also have a few old Rivarossi engines, which have flanges so large they won’t even run on Code 100, so they live in a box somewhere.
Besides the rail height, the ties are different, too. I’m not sure if it’s the height of the ties themselves, the width of the ties or the spacing, but they seem thinner and further apart when I look at them. I like that look better. And, I’ve found it much easier to ballast Code 83 track. I’m not sure if that’s a common experience, and I’ve never heard anyone else say it, but after ballasting both I’d have to say that Code 83 just seems to give a better result with less effort.