Other than amount of detail in say the pre-weathered stuff from micro engineering, is there any difference? Looks like I can get Model Power flex track cheaper than Atlas in code 100. Is there enough difference to justify the extra expense of the Atlas track? How about compatability with turnouts. I would like to use Peco turnouts, they are about 2.5 times the cost of Atlas, but I like them better, so if I could save in other areas, like flex track, then I’m better for it. Appreciate any and all opinions.
Knowing the scale would help, but let me ask you this. Is the model power track steel, brass, or nickel silver? I have bought some steel model power flex at a train show and it is not worth the savings. But, if the track is nickel silver I dont see why you shouldnt go with the MP.
I use Atlas flex 83. It is good enough for me. The question is a balance between cheap, opperation and artistic exellance. If you really want perfect looks, you need to spend much money and more time, and settle for disappointing opperation. If you want opperatuion lay 100 and don’t let anyone look too closely. Remember, you own the railroad and get to make those choices.
While there is some minor differences, There is nut sufficient eneugh difference between Model Power Code 100 and Atlas code 100 to not go with Model power. Model Power track however is not as flexable as atlas track and you might have to be a little more gentle when flexing it. However, model power only makes Code 100 track.
Thanks guys. Upon further observation, I have realized the difference in price is like $5 per 100 pcs. Not enough to quibble about. I should have realized that to begin with, duh. Thanks again.
If the price differnece is that small I would just go with the atlas. Atlas flex is tried and true and works great. Model Power makes more train set stuff so that Im not sure about.
The crossties on Model Power HO scale code 100 flex track are more correctly sized than Atlas. The MP rail is a little stiffer and harder to bend, but after ballasting you can’t tell the difference without looking up close.
Most of the prices I have seen are more like a $25 difference between the two brands for 100 pieces of track unless Atlas is having a fire sale
One thing to consider with Atlas code 100 flex track is that it is grossly out of scale for HO. It is more inline with On30. This has been an ongoing arguement between “experts” of narrow gauge railroading, and people like me, who use research and facts to back up our opinions. I’m using Atlas code 100 flex track exclusively on my On30 layout and it measures out almost perfectly. The only exception is the tie length. For narrow gauge railroads, they are a little short. Other than that, it’s a dead fit. They have the right spacing, and the right size. If you want to be a stickler about being prototypical, the Atlas code 100 might not be for you. If you want something cheap, with good quality and you don’t mind it being out of scale a tad, then go for it.
On30shay: I don’t know where yoy get your misinformation from, but if Atlas is so out of scale as you claim why is it the best selling brand of HO track. Every body else is wrong and you are right?
Before I accused anyone of misinformation, I’d do a little research to back it up. I have. There are others right here on this forum who have as well. It’s pretty well known that the Atlas code 100 is out of scale. Measure it for yourself. You’ll see it is much closer to being correct in O scale than HO on tie centers, as well as tie dimensions…all that is except the length of the ties. Now understand, when I say O scale, I am referring to On30, narrow gauge. Atlas code 100 has VERY close scale dimensions to pre 1900 narrow gauge (which is what most model). Do your research, and make your own measurements. I have, and so have many others. It’s a fact. It’s not misinformation.
Atlas code 100 is grossly out of scale for HO Standard guage, but it works fine. Put it this way – if you run Athearn Blue box trains and cars with cast on grabs (good enougher’s – most MR readers), code 100 is fine. If you run finer scale Branchline and Intermountain cars and Atlas or Genesis locomotives with Kadee #58 couplers, then use code 83, if you run non-Class 1 branches or shortlines, then use code 70. If you are Proto-87, then you pretty much have to hand-lay track. It is your world, and only YOU can make those decisions. Myself, I use Micro-Engineering code 83 flextrack on my Free-Mo modules to display my Prototype Modeler caliber locomotives. I am the fringe 1%, and I know it.
Cut ATLAS some slack. Their code 100 was designed for HO modeler’s almost 60 years ago, when it was really the only thing available. By keeping it, their R & D cost’s have been absorbed loong ago - so it’s Cheep.
They offer Code 83 at TODAY’S prices which is still out of scale for most of today’s trackage - except for a few heavy mainline segment’s - but it LOOK’S real , or at least ''more realer".
If someone want’s something that is closer to what is actually on the ground - and particulary for big Steam - it’s Code 70 for main and smaller (code 50-40 for siding’s),and for about DOUBLE or TRIPLE the cost of code 100. Hello! are you still there?
I personally like ME track and Shinohara/Walthers turnout’s. If you just want to run train’s Code 100 is probably good enough.Now, what are YOU going to buy?
When I got started, I didn’t know anything about ‘code?’. I just bought what was cheapest, and thought turnouts cost to much. My small layout that I never really nailed down was all code 100, some steel, some brass snap track, and some steel bachman ez track. But it worked, and it got me started.
When I wanted to get some better stuff, I did some research, because it all seemed overpriced to me. I decided that If I was going to make a real nice permanent layout, and spend all that money, I was going to do it right. When I saw the code 83 section at my LHS(how did I miss it b4?) I liked the look of the Atlas code 83 brown ties over the code 100 black fat ties. It had smaller ties spaced closer together, and smaller rail. I also got some Micro Engineering track, but it would get bent out of shape and more difficult to straighten than Atlas springy. I did like how you could make the ties crooked, though.
While what others say about it being your railroad is true, you may want to consider the model rr community altogether. Most clubs follow NMRA standards, or module based standards, and most use code 83. I switched to code 83 because while I’m not currently in a club, I may join one day, and I would’nt want to have to rip up a bunch of code 100 track to conform. But don’t let any rivet-counting train spotter tell you how to have fun. I saw a layout at Trainfest this year with a mainline on the Moon!
I use Atlas Code 100. I also run Genesis and Proto 2000 engines and every thing looks good to me. It just matters what you want and how you want it to look.
i use Atlas code 100- i like their flex-track- actually my 9" straights and my curves are Life-Like and L-L must be #100 because it matches the Atlas track- L-L switches(turnouts) are much cheaper than Atlas- they cost $8.39 at Hobbylinc
My comments weren’t meant to be negative towards Atlas. Just the opposite. I’m kinda glad it’s made out of scale. I use it exclusively on my On30 railroad. I love the stuff. It’s cheap and good quality. Now, with this many posts agreeing Atlas code 100 is way out of scale for HO, I’ll be looking for my apology from jsoderq for calling my stated facts misinformation. …not that I’m holding my breath.
Atlas or Model Power Code 100, as long as it’s N.S., will be just fine on you pike. As stated the Model Power is not as flexible, thus harder to lay (needing more pins, clamps, weights…) especially around corners or in a helix situation.
Yes, we can debate scale and how it looks with locos and rolling stock, but one thing is for sure with 100…Everything will run on it, and it will run well.
Personally, once the tack is painted, ballasted and weathered it’s hard for me to determine what code it is!
I’ve seen some really fantastic pikes with code 100 and wouldn’t have guessed it.