I’m a 54-year old relatively new modeler. I have done benchwork 5x9, wiring, and track laying, using code 83 track and turnouts (Atlas I believe). It’s a DC layout at this point. Will change as soon as I gather enuff $$$. I Haven’t started scenery, etc. yet.
My problem is that I am not terribly creative, and therefore will forever remain a freelancer in the hobby, with fictitious towns, a not-real lake, etc. etc. Therefore, since I am an “a-prototypical” modeler, it really doesn’t matter whether I use 100, or 83 - right? I mean there are no ‘real’ advantages to either one in my case, are there? I hope Code 100 isn’t being discontued or anything. Reason I am asking this is because I think I have successfully made some serious errors in my layout with a kink here, or too much of a gap there, causing some derailments and places where my couplers become, well, uncoupled. So, I plan on ripping it up, and restarting. And for various reasons, I am considering the Code100 EZ Track type of setup. Seems to me this is a more simple way of laying track, it’s stronger, and it keeps one honest - probably harder to kink the connections. The one change I may make is to still ballast the attached plastic roadbed, for a bit of realism.
I would like to hear from anyone out there who broke into the hobby, and have had similar experiences. And/or someone who has a good deal of experience with the EZ Track product (or similar).
And by the way, I love this stuff, and am undoubtedly hooked for life, in whatever capacity (feelancer or otherwise). Thanks! -Sully
Atlas sells a snap-together track called True-Track. It’s Code 83 with the molded base, so you can use it and still use some of your existing track where you want to.
Understand completely! I used to use Code 100 but then switched to Code 83 for my next layout because to me it looks better. That is the bottom line. What is it that will make you happy in the hobby? While I have no experience with EZ Track or True Track, it seems to me, IMHO, that these systems are an excellent way for someone new to hobby to get some track down that will minimize the number of derailments etc. There is no rule that says you can’t at a later date replace sections with Code 83, Code 70, handlaid etc should your interest shift in that direction in the future. There is nothing to feel sorry or bad about - the only person that you have to satisfy is yourself. If an around the table, EZ Track layout makes you smile - well, then you can consider yourself a succesfull model railroader! I think too many people get wrapped around the axle with doing things “the correct” way, get frustrated and leave the hobby. There was an article in MR several years ago where on of the editors visited a guy with a 4x6 HO layout made up of sectional track, no scenary and track running everywhere in order to squeeze in more sidings. The editor said he told his wife to go shopping while he visited this guys “toy layout” and that it shouldn’t take more than an hour or so. Well, the editor shows up and the owner and him start operating - for 3 hours! Bottom line - the layout worked for the owner and kept him happy.
Code 83 track is more realistic therefor thinner and more delicate to work with. Most of your advancerd modelers work with this. Code 100 is more stout and a much better choice for the novist. It will stand up much better to the riggers of being pulled up and relayed. Also in my opinion as long as there are newcommers to our hobby code 100 will always be there for them.
Ditto what they said. Performance with code 100 is an issue to some people. However, with RP25 wheel sets, code 100 rail becomes redundent. In my opinion, so does code 83!!! I’m a short line guy in the early 1900’s so I like 70 and 40 rail. It all depends on where you will be with the hobby two years from now, not necessarily where you are with the hobby today. It also depends on how much money you want to spend. Pay me now or pay me later if you decide to buy all new track.
Sully,
Some very good points have been made, but there is one very important thing to also consider. Do you want to yank all your track up after you have painted, placed scenery, ballast, and etc…? I believe you will have one heck of a mess. I believe I would make a choice and stick to it.
I have only been freelancing MR’ing for 1 year and I chose code 83 mainly because it looks better when your loco’s and rolling stock are on it. I believe 83 is only prototypical for modern mainline operations and that 70 is actually more accurate for early layouts and older spurs. But, if your freelancing, “Who cares, but you!”
Code 83 is not any harder to work with than 100 unless you use flex track and flex doesn’t take long to master. I have found 83 to be very strong considering the abuse I’ve given it during construction. Since your layout is 5x9 sectional track would probably be the easiest.
Sully: It’s your railroad. You can make the track look better with a bit of painting, especially the sides of the rails.
There was a thread here a while ago where someone was trying to get a broken turnout out of his EZtrack layout. You may wany to consider that.
Personally I just can’t see much difference between Code 83 and Code 100. It’s .017" in height–and, quite frankly, painting your rails properly will make more difference in their visual impact than shrinking your rail height by 17%.
I do understand that Code 100 is, theoretically, way too big. So are Kadee #5 couplers and RP25 wheelsets. But with the right painting, they look fine. I do respect the modeling abilities of those who go for the Proto:87 level of detail–and, in close-up photography, Code 55-70 rail looks fantastic on an HO layout. But it’s a heck of a lot of work, and if you’re not into enormous levels of detail, Code 83 or Code 100 are fine–and either are suitable for a mid-level modeler. Just paint the sides of your rails a nice dingy color, do a nice even ballast job, and highball!
When I started up again in the hobby last November I bought an Athearn set which included the Atlas True Track, which as has been stated, is Atlas Code 83 track and Atlas Snap Switches on prefab, plastic roadbead with a locking mechanism on each end. I enjoyed running the layout around a small Christmas scene and before the Holiday was over I had purchased quite a bit more of the True Track to expand upon the layout.
After the Holidays, the space occupied by the layout, which had grown to about 8’x6’ was reclaimed for living space. I decided to put together some tables we’d been using in the garage and formed a 9’x5.5’ layout which I covered with foam to get a level playing field. I continued with True Track as it was easy to try different configurations, went together reliably, and though a bit more expensive, a lot less work to get a running layout.
One problem I found early on was that most LHS in this part of So.Cal do not carry the True Track product, or if they do, only limited quantities so my source became the Internet. I found a couple of good sources at good prices so I’ve been very satisfied. This approach has given me more time to experiment with scenery, rolling stock rather than worry about framing, bending track, fixing rail joints, etc.
Right now I’ve just finished i putting in a Central Valley Plate Girder Bridge which utilizes its own roadbed with Code 83 track that I removed from some Atlas flex track. No problem integrating the pieces or running on the layout.
For a beginner it’s been a good experience for me and I’ll probably continue in this fashion for the foreseeable future.
I believe that the issue of your proposed change of track type has been fully addressed and commented by our friends above. However, I noticed the following little sentence in the middle of your explanation: “… and places where my couplers become, well, uncoupled. So, I plan…”
I’d like to add my “2 cents” precisely in regard of this particular area.
Indeed, the uncoupling problems you point out can be, and most of the time are, caused by track laying related problems. But you should be aware that this can also happen IF the couplers’ height and general positioning have not (have never?..) been checked by using an appropriate coupler gauge. If you never checked this out, buy one of these gauges (Kadee sells one for just $3.49 here: http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page29.htm), and thoroughly check each and every one of those couplers and adjust them as needed.
Another area of concern is the type of wheels you use in your rolling stock. The RP-25 profile is great since not only it’s flange height is much more prototypical and nicer to the eye but also, derailing problems are minimized especially when using code 83 track with its shorter rail height… If you’re using rolling stock with non RP-25 wheels on your (code 83) layout, your chances of an increased number of derailments are quite real.
All this to remind you that there are several possibilities you might want to explore – for instance, while you “… gather enuff $$$…”, as you say in your post – before you rip your current layout appart…
In any case, have lots of FUN!!! That’s what counts in our hobby!
Carl
couldn’tt hav said it better. Don’t make a change to a complex system by just looking at one or two parts of the system. everything works together. That’s what makes this such a fasinating and perplexing hobby… Many, many solutions to the same problem.!! Love it!
Wow! Thank you all for the tips and encouragement. After reading and digesting all of this, I think I will try to work out the kinks (again), before proceeding with the tearing up of the .83 track. I find it interesting that I had never heard of the RP25 product until your responses here. I may tackle that first and try them out. I don’t know what comes stock on the handful of rolling stock items I have. But, as I say, I do thoroughly enjoy ‘workin on the railroad’, even when things don’t go smoothly. So, I’m sure I will persevere, whichever direction I take. And again, I thank you all for your insight. -Sully
PS thanks esp to DKelly - you are right - the only person I really need to satisfy is myself.
There are two things I like about the Atlas code 83 track compared to the code 100. The Atlas code 100 turnouts have stamped points while the code 100 turnouts have what look like cut or machined points – it looks like a better design, and the above table switch machines are much less bulky.
The other thing I like is that the ties on the code 83 look less clunky and toy like. As people are saying, you can hardly tell the size of the rail (100 thousandths vs 83 thousands of an inch), but it is the everything else that matters.
One nagging detail is they did the ties a little different between the code 83 sectional track and the code 83 flex track. The Atlas code 83 brown “wood” tie flex has a slightly different tie spacing, and the ties are in this staggered pattern representing a sloppy track laying crew. If you are modelling mid 19th century work-gang laid rail, that may be appropriate, but I have looked at a lot of modern track and don’t see that sloppy of a job in laying track. I actually like the ties on the sectional track best, and I cut off the end ties around the rail joiner area and slip in some wood ties that I had left over from when I hand-laid code 70 rail some while ago. Looks pretty good.
The other thing about sectional track, is that I am thinking it is easier to do custom curvatures and transition curves than with flex. Flex is such a problem laying smoothly without kinks at the connections. With sectional track, you just clip the spacers between ties to make minor bend corrections – start with either 18 inch radius or straight track and work towards the exact curve you need. I thought I had invented this technique but then read someone else was doing it on another thread in this forum.
Is anyone hand laying track anymore? I can’t find a hobby shop that stocks the ties, spikes and rail – the claim is everyone uses flex. In some ways I find hand laid track easier than flex because unless you know what you are doing, you can end up w
One way to avoid kinks with flex track is to solder the flextrack onto the end of the previous rail BEFORE bending. And, wherever possible, putting joints between pieces of flextrack on tangents rather than curves.
It is true that Atlas Code 83 ties are noticeably lighter than Code 100 versions, which does have a visual impact–I used Code 83 for a 19th Century diorama I made for just that reason…I guess I’m a bit ambivalent about small code sizes because most of my track ends up under styrene streets anyhow, so it doesn’t much matter what rail size I use.
No problem! Your initial post got me thinking about the changes of interest I’ve had in the 20 or so years that I’ve been doing the model railroad thing (I’m not counting my youth when running the Lionel around and around seeing how fast and how many cars I could couple on was big time fun - anyone miss those days? I do sometimes). When I started out I used sectional track, snap turnouts and dc control. Just getting a train to run and being able to do some switching was an accomplishment for me and got me to smile alot. It wasn’t a problem that the warbonnet F7’s ran alongside PRR SD45s. After awhile I started to try to be more prototypical - if PRR, CNJ or LV didn’t run 'em, I didn’t buy 'em. Code 83, prototypical ballast color and detailing cars and engines came next. Again, most folks wouldn’t notice the difference - but I did. It also gave me a sense of accomplishment as I compared my earlier efforts with my new efforts. I used to just build up kit buildings and they improved my layout. Then I started painting and weathering my structures - again, more smiles as I noticed the improvement. Now, I am in the midst of doing alot of online research concerning the construction of NYC subway stations for my next layout. Will anyone here in West Texas notice the results of this research? Probably not - but I will. Still DC cab control for me - although someday I may switch over to DCC. I’m sure when I do - I’ll have another sense of accomplishment. I think if you were to poll long time model railroaders most of them will say what has kept them in the hobby for the long haul and has provided them the most personal satisfaction was the evolution of their interests and how this evolution improved their modeling and layouts while at the same time maintained their interest as they learned new skills. Somefolks move to totally accurate models of engines and rolling stock. Some move into more advanced control of their trains. Some become scenery gods. Others become totally into oper
Dumb question – how do you solder rail together without melting all of the ties? I know about heat sinks and rosin flux, but I have been soldering wire connections to rail joiners (it was on advice from a model-railroad oriented LHS proprieter) because of the hard time soldering the rail. Yeah, yeah, I know how the purists don’t want rail joiners to carry any kind of electrical connection, but I find it really hard to get rail hot enough to get solder to bond without melting half the ties.
What wattage iron to I need? What kind of flux or surface prep? Suggestions on heat sinking to protect the ties? Any special solder? Any other hints?
I use a Weller 100/140 watt soldering gun to solder rails together, and haven’t melted a tie yet. I also use relatively thin solder from Radio Shack as it seems to melt a bit faster into the joints.
I have a 100 watt iron. Although it doesn’t seem right at first glance, a larger iron will avoid melting the ties. The key is to get in and get out quickly. A larger iron will not lose as much heat when it is touched to the rails, thus raising the temp of the rails faster. The faster this goes, the less chance there is of raising the temp of the heat sinks and then the ties.
My advice is to buy codes 55.70 , 83 and 100 in flex sections and mount them to a board, ballast them, and see what YOU think…
The main reason to use smaller codes is the appearance. To some (myself included) this is a big issue. Operationally you might begin to see problems when you get to code 55 in HO depending on how it is laid and how close to RP 25 standards the rolling stock happens to be. I happen to like micro engineering flex because of the rail head shape, which I find to be closer to the real thing. Flex can be more difficult to work with in the beginning, but the rewards out weigh the drawbacks. You may change your mind over the years about this issue, many of us have.
RE soldering: I would add to the other good advice: to make sure that the track is clean where you are going to solder.
– before you rip your current layout appart…