I haven’t been in the hobby for some 25 years.Now that I’m retired(its great)I’ve picked it up again.The benchwork,foam and back drop are complete.As soon as I finish transfering my lines I’ll post a pics.
Now to my question–What is the difficulty with code 83?Also will I notice any eye catching differance between the 83 and 100?
No difficulty at all with Atlas code 83 (or probably others). To me the brown ties and smaller rail look much better than Atlas code 100, with it’s black ties and gigantic “spike heads.” Other makers have even better looking code 83, but Atlas seemed good enough.
Here’s a photo showing both, still un-ballasted and un-weathered. The yard tracks at the bottom are code 100, and the track with siding above it is code 83. The yard will be hidden staging - that’s why I used code 100 there.
Here’s another photo of the code 83 track and siding (named “Glenrock” on my layout), with a Fast Tracks homemade turnout in the foreground:
(Enlarge these photos by clicking on them to see the details)
Nice work, Mark. I hope you are sold on the Fast Tracks turnouts.
I used Code 100 because it is plentiful and inexpensive where I live. I don’t regret my choice, except for how it looks in images. I have begun to learn how to take images with a Canon Powershot that my wife got last Christmas. The Code 100 rails really stand out in photos…way too large.
Only ‘difficulty’ would be if you have some really old (1960’s-70’s) equipment, particularly European-made stuff like Rivarossi. Some of their flanges won’t work on anything less than code 100. Once Walthers came out with their code 83 line in the 80’s, most manufacturers made sure their equipment would work on it, so anything made since about 1985-1990 should be fine. Of course, if a car doesn’t work you could always replace the wheelsets.
FWIW I switched to HO in early 1988 and used code 83 from the start, I never had any trouble with any of the equipment I bought.
Code 100 is a little stronger and more bullet proof than 83, but 83 looks more realistic. Code 83 costs about 10% more. (there’s the wheel flange thing mentioned above)
I’m comparing Atlas track here. Don’t know about other manufacturers.
Dave, I always have this image in mind when I make the comments I did above, to which you responded. Would you agree that the rails in this image, weathered, are rather large for the scale of the other things visible? I think they look about 4" too high in scale, maybe more.
Whereas, in this image taken on the Micro Engineering 160’ combination bridge, for which the company supplies an appropriate length of Code 83 rails, the scale seems much better. It isn’t even ballasted, just painted Floquil Rust.
Atlas code 100 is wonderful for hidden and to-be-hidden track (all of mine to date.) It’s a lot more tolerant of rough handling than the finer (and closer to scale) code 83.
Code 83 looks much more realistic in exposed locations - especially since I’m modeling a prototype that went to using concrete ties just before my modeling dates. For industrial spurs and little-used sidings, lower rail (code 70, and even code 55) looks even better.
I build my own specialwork in place from raw rail on wood ties, so I sometimes mix higher rail at turnouts (and especially at multi-slip-switch puzzle palaces) with lower rail. The prototype does the same for the same reason - to minimize maintenance.
As long as the tops and gauge sides of the railheads line up, transitioning from one size of rail to another is no big thing.
I’m on my second actual layout. The first one was done with code 100 track. While planning my second layout (after the original was torn down at my parents’ house), I saw code 83 on a friend’s layout. I did my entire layout with code 83, and it looks much better (more to scale) than code 100.
IIRC Code 100 is something like 156-lb. rail in HO, and one of the few railroads to use rail that heavy was the Pennsylvania, so maybe you’re actually not that far off?? [:D]
It looks like I’m going to be using a mix of Code 83 and 100 on my next layout. One thing I found seems to help is I darkened the rails to a dark gray with Neo-Lube (an electronics lubricant that also conducts electricity) and then polished the the top and sides of the rail head with a BrightBoy. It seems to me that having that strip of shinyness on top kinda draws your attention away from the large lower part of the rail. But then I don’t have my layout up yet so it’s just kinda looking at it at the workbench, we’ll see how it works out. [%-)]
I use a mix. Code 100 on the main lines, 83 on sidings and the mtn line, even a bit of code 70. 100 and 83 are easy to find, smaller sizes more difficult.
In the open there is quite a visual difference between the two. I think that the ties have as much to do with that as the rail height. After weathering and ballasting, code 100 looks fine most of the time. I agree that taking the shine off of the sides of the rail makes the height less noticible.
I’m in N scale; but I used to be in HO so I say use 83 on your main line; and save the 100 for hidden trackage. When I first laid my track, I used all Code 100. Then I saw a pic of a layout done with Code 83, and thought it looked so much better, I imediately ripped up all my 100 and replaced it; and was glad I did. As someone else said, it won’t cause you any problems unless you run trains that were built in the 60s-70s on it.
I started with code 83 because it looked better. I have replaced most of it with code 100 because I occasionally let my granddaughters run their Thomas the Tank Engine on my system, and the flanges of the Thomas cars hit the ties on the code 83 track.
The problem is, of course, temporary. The 8 year old is already beginning to prefer the “real trains”, but the 4 year old still prefers Thomas, and the newly aquired “Hogwart’s Express”. Then we also have a new one (under 6 months) who will also, undoubtedly, go through the “Thomas” years.
Use code 83 no question. All of the top manufactureres have code 83. Atlas, Micro Engineering, Shinohara,etc. and the ties are already brown. Code 100 is more for noobies starting out that don’t know any better, like myself 20 years ago [:)]or for toylike layouts or those who arn’t concerned with prototypical looking track.
With all due respect to other posters, I would say that code 83 is a better choice. It depends on what is most important to you. I value realism, so I use code 83, 70 and 55 in visible areas and I buy Micro Engineering. ME track has a narrower railhead profile and scale spike and tie plates that enhance realism. I also value operational reliability. I haven’t had any problems with code 83 or even code 70. I don’t run lots of pre-1980 rolling stock. I use Atlas code 100 and Peco switches where I have hidden track.
To my eye, the “ballasting and painting you can’t tell the difference” approach doesn’t cut it. It helps, but Selector’s picture nicely illustrates the issue. This is because I think that the eye (and brain) take in everything in the scene and it all subtlety adds up to how real a given area looks on the layout. Another way to put it is that a scene that’s looks good with code 100 (IMHO) will look even better with code 83 or even 70.
Here is a photo of un- ballasted code 70 ME track on the left code 55 on the right…
Mark, yes I have considered that. Unfortunately, I haven’t gotten around to actually acquiring any stock…once I do, I will surely fix this. In fact, I may do it in Code 70 because I have to do the same for the other bridge on my layout…it currently has no guard rails.
Thank-you for your kindness…I kind of like that image myself.
I never had trouble with Thomas and code 83 on my old layout which was all code 83, in fact I had Thomas, Annie and Clarabel running on a circle of Atlas code 83 track-with-roadbed around the Xmas tree last December. Maybe you have an earlier Thomas that had deeper flanges than later ones or something?? BTW it’s a bit of a bother but you can file/turn down the flanges to make them smaller…at least on the cars I’d think you could replace the wheelsets with ones with smaller flanges??