Im rebuilding my layout with flex track and i want to know whats the best code to use 83 or 100 or something else? whats the pros and cons of them as well. Thanks for your feedback
Assuming HO. A lot of people like code 83 because it is a more realistic size. But code 100 is more robust and can cost less. It’s really a trade off. Personally, I can’t tell much difference at normal viewing distances. Close up photographs are where I notice the size the most, but at that point you also need to have all the details correct as well.
Good luck
Paul
Yes its HO. sorry
If you are starting out fresh - then c83 is the way to go as the selection of Turnouts is much greater!
As for the size difference once the track is weathered then it is really hard to tell unless one is really looking at the track!
And IF your Visitors are spending time looking at your track instead of the rest of the Scenery - You may need to update the scenery and Trains! 
BOB H - Clarion, PA
A bit more specific.
The ‘Code’ is the rail height in hundredths of an inch. It is uniform regardless of scale, since superheavy Z-scale rail would be suitable for mine cart tramway use in G.
Prototype rail is identified by weight (#/yd) and section design (AAR, PRR, asce…) and there are tables available that give exact dimensions for each. Height is only one of the several dimensions considered.
So, starting with HO scale, note the following common sizes:
- Code 100. Too heavy for any prototype. Even PRR #155/yd rail was only 92 hundredths of an inch high in HO.
- Code 83. Suitable for present-day (and older heavy duty) mainlines. It scales to #132-#140/yd depending on section. I have also encountered recently-built industrial leads laid with #132/yd rail rolled in 2000.
- Code 70. #100-#110/yd, rail suitable for WWI era main lines and more recent yards and industrial trackage.
- Code 55. #70-#80/yd rail, narrow gauge, old or light-duty (no locomotives here) spurs.
- Code 40. #40/yd rail, narrow gauge secondary tracks.
- Code 25. #12#16/yd, mine cart tracks (carts hand-pushed by miners.)
Modelers seriously concerned with modeling a prototype, or with the difference between standard gauge and 500mm gauge mine trackage, can pick and choose accordingly. For most, all Code 83 is the easiest solution.
If you already have some Code 100 you can lay it where the sun won’t shine - tunnels and hidden staging.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - 4 track gauges, various rail heights)
I did the first half of my layout in Code 100, mostly because I had a lot of old rolling stock with “pizza cutter” large-flange wheels. When I started Phase 2, I transitioned to Code 83. I found that Code 83 is just as easy to work with, just as robust and looks much better. Code 100 may be cheaper.
There is no “best.” The biggest advantage to code 83 in HO is that most available products have finer spike and tie texture than typical code 100. Much code 100 that’s widely available has grossly oversized spikes, and the tie proportions emphasize the generally coarse look. The cross-section of much code 100 rail is also much less realistic thn comparable code 83. These shortcomings combine to create visual issues far more noticeable than the height of the rail.
Code 83 can be no more difficult to use (depending on which brand you choose), and is more likely to be something you’ll want to keep for the long term should your standards evolve.
I will second that thought.
Rich
Well…I have been using code83 since about a year after it came out and if I did not have umteen scale miles of it layed already…I would switch back to code100. I am not a rivet counter, so I really don’t care that it’s a bit over scale looking, but I would rather have the reliability of being more robust and easier to solder to and work on…and I can solder really darn good. I’m beginning to believe, I would rather have more meat on the table than dietary portions.
Oh! I can see pretty darn good too, I just need more light than others, I have Glucoma.
Take Care! [:D]
Frank
Code 83 is just as reliable and just as easy to solder as Code 100.
And, as I say, it is easier to work with if you are dealing with turntables, specialty track like double crossovers, 3-ways, wyes, etc. which are more prevalent in Code 83 than Code 100.
Rich
I’ve had Brass double crossovers in code100, Shinohara and most all their switches, a little before Your time in the Hobby and they are just more robust than code83, has nothing to do with soldering. They have been out way before code83. Turntables,crossovers, wye’s are not new.
I will not jump in the river…because they say so, Marketing.
Take Care!
Frank
Hey Old Timer, if it has nothing to do with soldering, then why did you mention it?
Newcomer Rich
Not to add to the FIRE here (but I will)!
I have had more problems with c83 Turnouts trying to make them less derailment prone than I EVER had with c100!
WHY? - It is beyond me!
And as for the more scale looking - with 4000 feet of track down
I have both c83 and c100 track.
When someone asks why I am using c100 track
I let them know that I have c83 on the layout too!
Go Find it!
They can’t find it after an hour of looking!
WHY?
I have the track and ties weathered and ballst down - so there must NOT that much difference!
BOB H - Clarion, PA
Newcomer,
I was trolling…[:D]
Take Care!
Ornery
Frank
Bob,
I agree with You 100%. Easier to tweak…that little extra height in the rail, might be the key.
Take Care!
Frank
And I agree with both of you. But it is just harder to find DCC Friendly turntables and specialty track in Code 100 than it is to find it in Code 83.
Rich
Rich,
Tongue in cheek. What’s DCC? [#oops]
Take Care!
Frank
[8-|]
How about some added to the fire. =P
My guess is the looker is to busy looking at the rail and not the molded on tie detail. As Rob mentioned, it’s a good deal finer and while weathering does mute or hide that somewhat, it can be seen by someone who is aware of it.
That said, if it doesn’t matter, then just go with whats cheapest and most durable. I use code 100 in my staging yard for duribility where appearance isn’t important.
I can say this, when smaller code trail is used, it does make the trains look more massive in contrast. This is especially noticable in N-scale where the track is code 80 and looks quite dominating vs. the finer code 55 track.
Appeariently you have not seen the latest batch of the c100 Flex from Atlas
The detail is much finer and almost the same as the c83 Flex as I have both here on stock!
It doesn’t look at all like the old c100 Flex from many years ago!
BOB H - Clarion, PA
I pretty much agree with Rob on this. You can judge this for yourself, take a look at the differences in ME code 83 and any brand code 100 and decide what you like.
Guy