Reading through the posts I have noticed that most people are using code 100 track. I was given about 30 feet of code 83 for Christmas to start my layout, I really like the look of the code 83 flex track and believe it is more to scale. My question is why do less people use it and what are the problems if any using code 83 ?
I am not sure where you are getting your information, but most ‘scale’ modelers that are buiding ‘serious’ layouts are using code 83. My latout was built starting in 1987, and code 100 was ‘normal’ back then. If I built a new layout, I would use code 83. The cost of code 83 is a little more than code 100, but it is a one time expense over the first year and you have it paid for. Some folks still like to use code 100 as most any large flange model will run on it, or they can pick up used code 100 tack cheap at train shows.
Jim
Thanks for the reply. I was reading the posts here in the forums and most of those posting about starting a new layout say they are using code 100. It took 20 years to convince the wife to let me build this layout so I hope to get it right the first time. I have a lot of old stuff some of it over 30 years old, so I figure I will probably have to replace some of the trucks and plan on going with steel wheels on all my rolling stock. The code 83 that I have seen on a finished layout just looks so good that was why I decided to run with it.
Phase 1 of my layout was done with Code 100. At the time, I had a lot of old rolling stock and a few engines, so I thought Code 83 might give me trouble with them. For Phase 2, I decided to try Code 83 for the same reason as you - I prefer the look. Now that I have most of the trackwork done, I’ve found that even my old cars from the 1960s have no problems with Code 83 at all.
For some reason, I also find it easier to ballast Code 83 track.
My current Santa Fe in Oklahoma was started in 1984 and has been pretty much finished for the past 10 years. Minor changes since then. It was laid with code 100 ME track, and though a few places have code 83 and 70, they are limited.
I am certainly not going to tear it up at this date and redo the track. Won’t happen.
Bob
Stick with the Code 83 and don’t look back. I started my layout with Code 100 and then bought all my turnouts on Ebay, opting for Peco and Walthers/shinohara. Then I saw some code 83 and tried a pc of flex track. That sold me, so I sold all my code 100 and bought code 83, all on Ebay and I actually made money in the process (???). About half way through building with code 83 I started to think about DCC. Well you can see where this is going, I thought I had to have DCC friendly turnouts, so I sold all my code 83 turnouts and bought DCC friendly turnouts on Ebay. This time I lost money. But, now I am happy and have great looking and operating track. I can see where code 100 will eventually become obsolete like the horn hook couplers. One other note here and the only ‘problem’ with code 83 ; I had a lot of old Rivarossi articulated steam engines and GG1’s that wouldn’t run thru the turnouts because of the large flanges. I also replaced all of them with newer versions with small flanges and can motors.
Welcome to the hobby and don’t sacrifice unless it is something that is completely over your budget. Track is probably the most important building block on your layout. Don’t skiimp here.
Bob
Up until a few years ago, Code 100 was easier to get - at least a greater variety and stock of turnouts etc. That’s not true today - Code 83 is pretty much as easy to get. It IS a bit more expensive, and I went with Code 100 for the reasons already mentioned - old equipment with deep flange wheels and lower cost. To be honest, I am not using any of the old equipment - except a BUDD RDC coach, but I ended up swapping trucks on that one so the flange issue is a non-issue for me. If I was starting fresh now - I would probably use Code 83.
I’m no longer in HO, but speaking from past experience – Code 83 all the way. It’s much better looking. I’m not aware of any overriding benefit to the Code 100.
It depends on the era you model.
Modern era with heavy main line would represent code 83 rail. Secondary track or older era would have code 70 rail or even code 55 rail. With my narrow gauge H0n3 I use at sidings and spurs code 40 rail and for main code 55 rail. With RP25 wheels there’s no problem.
Wolfgang
I started out seven years ago with Code 100 track but quickly moved to Code 83 track. But, not before accumulating a lot of Code 100 turnouts and Code 100 flex track. So, today, my layout is divided by transition tracks between the Code 100 portion and the Code 83 portion.
The reason that I moved toCode 83 track was not the lower profile or the more prototypical look but, rather, the greater availability of specialty track in Code 83. It simply was more difficult, if not nearly imposssible, to find Code 100 track for #8 turnouts, wyes, 3-way track, bridge track and curved turnouts. When Walthers introduced the 130’ turntable with Code 83 bridge track, that was the last straw.
My advice to you is to install the Code 83 track and don’t even give a second thought to Code 100 track.
Rich
Good point about specialty track. I had to use Code 83 bridge track on my trestle and transition to my Code 100.
Go code 83, I use 70 but 83 was brand new when I started and not readily available.
I’m actually in the process of going the other direction. Im preparing a new 15x8 layout and this weekend bought the lumber. Funny thing is I changed both track and lumber.
For lumber the price for 2x3 studs was less than half of the price than 1x4. As a result the layout will be framed with 2x3.
For track the code 100 was about 20% cheaper for flex and 25% cheaper for turnouts. Track and first round of turnouts cost 425 bucks and the saved hundred will buy more later.
The final decision was based on the turnouts. I wanted the peco’s because of the internal spring. What I found is that the code 100 version offered better options for me. The small radius turnouts (22r) are much shorter and will allow me to built a tighter ladder yard giving me better use of space. Also when side by side, except for the color of the ties you can’t tell the difference. At the club when painted and ballasted you can’t tell the difference.
I’ve been using code 83 for about 4 years now and except for knowing it’s closer to scale, I haven’t seen any benefit using it. Now if I were a rivet counter and there was a significant difference that would be different but I think I may have waken up for a change. And some of the saved money may even buy a loco of an era that doesn’t fit the layout. [;)]
I been using Code 100 and Peco turnouts and like it,but like Code 83 also.Whatever works for you.
I just want to thank everyone for the replies, and I now see that it is just a personal prefference on what code to use. I am going to stick with the code 83, not because of it being closer to scale but simply because I like the way it looks. I have some older code 100 flex track and laying them side by side the code 83 just looks better to me.
Again Thank you all for the advice.
Ron
Also a lot of people like using code 100 for staging tracks and hidden areas since it is generally cheaper to purchase and/or they may already have it laying around from previous layout efforts.
John