Code 83 rails vs code 100?

Hi, Looking around for some flextrack I came to the conclusion that C83 is much more expensive then C100. Why is that and what are the benefits of modelling with C83 over c100? I now that it suposedly looks better but I can not really say that I notice much of a difrence. Is there a good reason besides looks to get c83?

Lillen

Lillen,

Code 83 rail is .083" high; Code 100 is .100" high. Code 83 is closer to prototypical mainline rail, therefore more realistic looking. Code 100 is slightly taller but more bullet proof.

I have Code 83 and have NOT had any problems with it. Some of the older Rivarossi cars and locomotives with deeper wheels flanges might have problems on Code 83 track. All other rolling stock and locomotives with RP-25 flanges will work fine.

Tom

Not that I could think of, Lillen. I have used Code 100 in my latest layout because it is cheap, works reliably, is strong, and can allow the passage of deeper flanges that might otherwise get hung up on ballast or other details inside the rails or frogs. As some will agree, once you have it ballasted and painted, it doesn’t look much different from the Code 83.

I use code 100 and I think the same way you do, they look close enough to save money by buying code 100. I think code 83 users are more apt to have problems, not that they do, but the potential is stonger with code 83. If you are experienced and know about standards of different track type, wheel flanges, weight and other things, I guess you could work with code 83. I just prefer code 100. Just my [2c]

-beegle55

Code 100 track is cheap because it’s 50 years old and much of the tooling is paid for. It also apeals to beginners because of price and having lower maintenance than brass track - which is cheaper yet.

Code 83 track is newer and closer to realism. That plus the offering of DCC type switches in code 83, makes it popular on this side of the pond.

Never mind that even more realistic track is available in codes 75, 70, and 55 and fineline 87.

Lillen, it is really a matter of personal preference and needs. Some would not consider using code 100 because for them accurate, prototypical rails are an essential and important element of the over all model. I have great respect for any modeller that has the wherewithal and skill to make truly accurate models. I don’t have sufficient knowledge to recognize the lack of realism. For me, Code 100 painted, weathered and ballasted is plenty good enough. I chose it because I wanted to run some older locos with deeper flanges. Looks, price, local availability, compatibility with your rolling stock and reliability all have relative values, you just need to decide what is important to you. There are plenty of code 100 DCC compatible turnouts, so don’t let that be a deciding factor.

Lillen–I use Code 100 on my mainline and Code 83 in my yards. Once painted and ballasted, I can’t tell the difference between the two of them except for the fact that the ties on Code 83 are skinnier. A lot of modelers who use Code 83 on their mainlines will often revert to Code 100 on their hidden trackage or staging yards, because even though it is ‘over-scale’, it’s also VERY reliable.

So it’s really a matter of choice.

Tom

What always amazes me is that people will spend hundreds of dollars on engines and cars, will spend hours painting and decaling their models, and will complain loudly that a manufacturer did something wrong, yet will buy and use Code 100 rail.

Put a Kadee car, an Atlas Master Series loco, or a piece of brass on Code 100. Then place it on some Code 83, 70 or 55. There is a world of difference in appearance. Small rail makes everything look better and much more realistic.

To me, using Code 100 is like using Lionel tinplate track.

Now I’m not a Proto87 modeler by any means, but the difference in price between Atlas Code 100 and Atlas Code 83 is small in price (40 cents per yard on Trainworld.com) yet huge in appearance.

Paul A. Cutler III


Weather Or No Go New Haven


Except trucks equipped with wheels having the standard .110" wheel tread…

To some, using code 100 means toy trains, to many of us, it means using track that is stronger and therefore more durable, more tolerant of less than perfect rolling stock and locomotives and is cheaper. Code 100 is more tolerant of less than perfect benchwork. Code 100 is less likely to kink and cause derailments of even perfect rolling stock and locomotives.

If your requirement is to ‘run trains’, have the kids involved and your mechanical and technical skills are not yet as developed as you’d like, Code 100 is a viable solution.

On the other hand, your plan and vision is for a museum quality, carefully detailed and as true to scale as possible, then Code 83 is viable, however, you’ll need to plan for a number of issues that come with code 83. Earlier today, Fred W wrote the following paragraph. I think he outlines additional issues one needs to know when evaluating code 100 vs 83 to make a good decision for you;

[quote user=“fwright”]
snip

Did you seek help on how to overcome your difficulties in laying code 83 track that would run smoothly? W

Thanks for all the replies. The thing is that in Sweden most things are more expensive. I can’t get ahold of Atlas here but I have to order it. That figures into the equation. I would rather be able to buy my rails in my own country as you can probably understand.

But for me code 100 might be the way to go. Price is not that much of an issue. That is only an issue back home, not when buying from the US. For the looks I do not care. I can’t tell the difrence. Also I use a Big Boy dressed up as a B&O EM-1 so I’m hardly prototypical anyways.

So then it comes down to two things. Reliability and availability. I think there seems to be a strong consensus that c100 is more reliable to use then c83. The room I operate in have temperature difrences between -30 and +45 degrees celsius. I guess this is pro c100.

As to availability, the only thing I haven’t found yet is #8 Atlas turnouts. All I can find is #6 wich I guess would do. I’m running large steam and walthers heavyweights as my largest vehicles.

Thanks, Lillen

Oh, one more thing. One the swedish forum where I asked the same thing some posters meant that code 100 might disapear in the not to distant future. Is this propable? I mean it seems that a lot of people still use it? And if it went away, I can’t see the problem in starting to use c 83 again.

Lillen

Both sides of the c83 vs c100 preference issue have been pretty well covered. I happen to be one of those that started my original layout in brass c100 track, many years ago. My Model Railroad Hobby Shop dealer, happens to stock mostly c83 track. My layout requires quite a few double curve switches, which seem to be more available in c83. Maybe I will regret it, but I now buy Nickel Silver track, and still use much of the old brass, scavenged from my former layout. This means that I have to use Transition Rail joiners. Good luck! Bob

Lillen: I have to agree with everything said thus far…On both sides of the many sides to this issue!

I for one feel that the c100 is “bullet proof” and “forgiving” as mentioned, and it may just be that my eyes are as old as I am…But, once the track is down, ballasted and weathered, I can’t tell a difference!

Regarding how long c100 will be around: I have to believe that we will see it for many years to come. As stated, it’s been a standard for 5o+ years and is still most likely the most popular.

Regarding turnouts: I had heard that Atlas was going to do a larger radii (#8) but personally, I haven’t yet seen one. On the other hand, the # 6’s will work fine, and should look pretty good too. I think I still have a few Atlas #6 turnouts left over from my project. If you’re interested, you can email me.

May be an issue if you’re running trains 24/7 as in a museum, or walking on the layout, or have a very active club layout; for most situations, differences in rail strength and durability are of little or no consequence…

Yes, code 100 can handle deeper flanges, but can’t handle out-of-gauge wheelsets, mismatch between truck width and appropriate axle length, improper attachment of trucks to underbody, and improper car weighting any better than smaller code rail…

Yes, flex track sections, but same-brand code 100 turnouts may or may not be cheaper, depending on the brand; moreover, the range of available frog angles (including curved and wyes) in prebuilt code 100 turnouts is less than for code 83…

Not established. The only part of the benchwork that matters for track is the sub-roadbed; problems there will be transmitted to the track independent of the rail height…

Not established. Kinks are most likely to occur at joints between sections of rail of any height…

Not established. As above, trains run as well on code 83 as on code 100 except when running equipment with deep flanges. Children can run trains equally as well on track having any rail code, and it takes no m

Shilshole,
Granted, small rail does make the “fat” .110 wheels look even fatter. I didn’t think of that. LOL Sort of like running an ol’ Athearn GP7 next to a P2K GP7. [;)] But if you can’t see the wheel treads, then smaller rail does make everything else look better…

joe-daddy,
Since when is Code 100 more “fault tolerant” than Code 83? It’s still the same gauge. A bump in Code 100 will be just as bad as a bump in Code 83. A kink in Code 100 will derail the same number of cars as a bump in Code 83. This is a myth, a falsehood if you will, that I have no idea where it came from other than by those that like Code 100 because it’s cheaper and are just trying to justify it’s use.

Now, Atlas Code 100 is stronger than Atlas Code 83 as the abnormal size of the plastic clips that hold the extra large ties to the extra large rail are more able to resist extraordinary abuse of the track. But there’s a simple solution to that…don’t whack the track. Atlas Code 83 is pretty strong, and you have to abuse it pretty bad to break it. Simply leaning on it, for example, will not damage it when it’s spiked on the layout. You really have to attack it to damage Code 83. Insisting on Code 100 for it’s strength over Code 83 is like insisting on driving an M1A2 Ambrams tank to work because of it’s strength over a Ford Taurus. Sure, it’s stronger, but how much strength do you need?

BTW, even Code 83 isn’t for museum quality trackwork, unless you are modeling modern-era mainlines. Code 83 is roughly equivalent to 132 lb. rail, which was not the norm for most railroads back in the day. Code 70 would be better for realism on a historical layout, as it’s 100 lb. equivalent is more in line with what railroads were actually running on for mainlines (the NH, for example, used 107 lb. rail for most mainlines). For sidings, Code 55

I have not read further down your thread to this point, so someone may have alerted you to this already; either Atlas, but I think it is Peco, has announced longer turnouts, one of the a #8, in the last issue of MR…I hope I have that right.

Even if I am wrong, have you ever considered making your own? If you are in the hobby for the duration, and are likely to have to continue to buy/replace turnouts, why not learn to make your own? Yours will be better than anything you can buy, and you will always be able to manufacture your own unique requirements…as you must have seen in the thread by Tim Warris when he shows us what can be done. If you don’t know what I am talking about, look down the Weekend Photo Fun thread and see what I mean.

Just a suggestion for you, Lillen…I know you are going full tilt on your layout, and don’t want or need impediments, but this is a useful detour for you.

Selector, I will look into that. The thing is this. Right now I’m back at the university. I take two courses at once to save money and time, one a masters degree in history and the other a teacher. But money is tight. So I want to save money and time. But, this is very much a trial layout. It’s not supose to be the final one. Because when I’m done with my studies in two years(I’ll be 32) the plan is to expand my house by a 100 square meteres and get a full sixe trainroom. That will be aproximately 5*10 metres. So this is a way to learn and have fun while I wait. So learning to make turnouts wold be great to do. Where do I buy the stuff? And what do I buy?

But this also the reason I don’t want to sink to much money in stuff that can’t be moved. My current layout is 3*5 metres and that is OK but to small for my taste. I wan’t everything I buy now to be salvagable if possible. That is Why I won’t solder the turnouts, only the track and so on.

Any tips are greatly apreciated. Right now I’m leaning towards getting the Atlas c83 from the U.S. The difrence is 80$ for 20 turnouts and 100 pieces of flextrack and that is OK. In swedent he difrence is huge. I would have to spend something like 1500$ to get that in the brands available(Peco and Rocco).

Thanks Magnus

Code 83 is less durable, meaning it is less rigid, easier to bend,distort and therefore kink. That code 83 will kink easier than code 100 is fact. Track that kinks is less fault tolerant that track that kinks less. Sound logic, not myth, but fact.

It is a fact that many, not all code 83 turnouts and x crossings have shallow groves and old cars will hop or derail. This is not so on Code 100 turnouts and crossings, therefore code 83 is less fault tolerant of wheel types than code 100. This is not myth, but fact.

My HO railroad running code 83 or 100 is as reliable as a Lionel/MTH or LGB for that matter and is IMHO more realistic. That I like to run trains in HO size because of selection, size

Wot, you mean you haven’t sliced and reattached all your vintage Athearn hoods to achieve scale width??? Neither have I…[:)]

On not seeing the treads: I’d pretty much restricted use of Intermountain semi-scale wheels to tankers and logging skeletons, where they can be seen, and to Westerfields and kitbashes-to-prototype that deserved them. However, their rolling characteristics are so superior to Kadees that eventualy I’ll use them on everything. Haven’t decided whether or not to use NWSL semi-scales on diesel power, since they’re really hidden.

Yes, but it wasn’t hooey in original context. Somebody quote-mined or misunderstood…