I’m having trouble deciphering the different kinds for track. I know there is flex-track that you can bend into shape and there is snap-track. I will most likely go with flex-track from all of the positive repsonses I’ve had about it. The thing that get’s me is the codes. Looking at the Atlas site there are two kinds, Code 100 and Code 83. What is the difference? Are there any other kinds that I should know about?
Thanks for the help
The codes refer to the scale of the track (I don’t recall offhand the exact definition). Anyway, the higher the number, the bigger and thicker the rail. Code 100 is the old standby but from an accuracy perspective the rail is too high and too thick for HO scale. Code 83 is closer to realistic for mainline (it also comes with brown rather than black ties which is somewhat better if you aren’t planning on painting the track). There are also smaller codes like Code 70. People that are sticklers for accuracy will do Code 83 for mainline and Code 70 or smaller for branchlines, yards and sidings. The different codes will connect to each other but require a special rai joiner that is bigger on one side than the other. The smaller codes are also a little more fragile and it may be harder to find turnouts for them.
Anyway, I would recommend just using Code 83 for everything. It has become the new standard and is preferable to Code 100 and about the same price. However, if you want to be super accurate, the smaller codes would be the most appropriate for branchlines, sidings, and yards.
I can’t resist this one. The code of the rail refers to it’s height - code 100 is slightly higher than code 83. As a result, code 100 looks less prototypical than code 83. Many modelers choose code 83 which is becoming more and more popular because of it’s authentic look. There is also code 70 which many modelers use on sidings since railroads used lighter rail on sidings.
I recently had to make the decision as to what track to use for myself. I did extensive research by actually looking at different brands of track and checking with the folks at this forum. I ended up using Kato Unitrack code 83. It is sectional track with a simulated ballast roadbed built in. I will still have to use Atlas code 83 for my turntable area and bridges but 99% of my track is unitrack. Sectional track ‘locks’ you into having to fit the pieces like a puzzle. I actually found this to be an advantage and here is why:
On my first layout I ever built I used Atlas flextrack throughout. When finished, I had at least one or two turns that came out too sharp. I know I should’ve been more careful while laying the track but that is my point about sectional track - you can’t make a mistake like making a turn too tight a radius. That can be a big help for a beginner or novice. The drawback of sectional track some will say is it’s conductivity - but I have not found that to be a problem. I finished my mainline two days ago and I can run a BLI Hudson around my 16’x12’ layout with only 2 feeder wires!
Whatever you decide it should be right for you and you alone. Good luck!
Mr. Whitman is right on.
‘Plug together track with roadbed’ - such as Kato’s is SIMPLEST.
FLEXTRACK is 3’ straights, but requires cutting and shaping on curves, plus adding roadbed for support.
CODE 83 track is newer & LOOKS BETTER. Code 100 is CHEAPER but oversized.
FOR BEGINNERS:
Errors in trackwork cause errors in everything else - regardless of cost.
Switches/Turnouts have gaps in the rail which cause wheel-bounce - a primary cause derailments.
Reliability costs more (surprise!). Cheaper is not ‘better’. (Ebay is not a friend for the inexperienced).
Smaller layouts need smaller equipment to run well. MATCH.
for beginers and economy use code 100. it cheaper and easier to get. after the ballast and scenery are down, nobody going to notice the slight difference in size of rails except a nit-picker and those are worth throwing out of your life anyway. my best freind use to use code 83 but stopped for three reasons. #1 - you can’t hardly see the difference once the scenry is in, #2 - it’s more expensive and is easier to make mistakes with, and #3 his medical problems require that he dont use sharp tools so he just uses bachman sectional track now. code 100 rail of course. there is a 4th reason. if you have older locos or rollin srtock with big wheel flanges they dont work well on code 83
First, codes. The number is the height of the rail, in thousandths of an inch. The importance of this dimension is that 1:1 scale rail (which is described in pounds per yard) has a vertical height which scales down at the same rate as everything else. Code 83 is accurate for 133 pound rail, commonly used on present-day main lines and also used on heavy locomotive lines like the N&W back in the later days of steam. Code 100 is actually too big for any railroad application - it’s equivalent to the 172 pound rail once used under movable bridge cranes. Code 70 is appropriate for the rail size typical of steam-age lines west of the Rust Belt (and present-day short lines and regionals.) Code 55 (in HO) approximates the rail size under interurban cars in the '20’s and at the ragged ends of sidings and storage yards up to the present.
Which code, or codes, you choose will be determined by how important precise detailing of trackwork is to your personal enjoyment. Some people obsess about it. Most pick one and press on. The choice is yours.
On to sectional versus flex. Sectional track comes in several, mostly not mutually compatable, varieties. It enables a modeler to lay curves more easily than flex, but only to the radii produced by the manufacturers. Once again, how critical this is depends on how badly you want a specific radius. 610mm radius (24 inches) is readily available. 670mm isn’t.
Flex track can be laid to any radius, makes producing proper easements and superelevated curves relatively painless, but can be a bear to lay to an accurate curve radius - especially if you’re pushing the limit of what your rolling stock is designed to run over.
A good, but not perfect, compromise is to use Atlas snap-track sections for curves, with compatable flex introduced for straight and spiral easements.
No matter what kind of track you decide to lay, it pays to de-burr every rail end. At the
The “code” refers to the height of the rail above the ties in 1/1000 of an inch. Code 83 track is 0.083" tall; code 100 is 0.100" tall; etc.
You can mix them together, adding shims where needed (there are manufactured rail joiners designed to connect different height rails together). You may need to do that depending on the manufacturers of your flex track and your turnouts. Prototypical railroads will often use heavier rails on high-traffic lines (such as busy mainlines); and lighter rails on low-traffic areas (such as yards and spurs).
Which you use on your layout is a matter of personal choice. However, some (mainly the rivet-counters) would say the code 100 is out-of-scale (over-size); but many claim it is easier to work with as it is more forgiving than the smaller codes.
If you’re cost conscience, use code 100, and come back and paint the track brown. Most people end up painting the track at some point. It always makes the rails look smaller. Of course, you mask off the tops of the rails.
OK, now that you’ve got a bunch of HO answers, let me throw an N scale one in the ring.
All of the stuff that’s been said about HO scale track applies to N scale, with the exception of the code numbers. In N scale there’s a new set of numbers to work with.
The big stuff is code 80, there’s code 70, code 55 and code 40. Those are the most popular that I know of, thought there are other sizes available.
Code 80 is the standard stuff and is pretty bulletproof and cost effective. It handles well and offers a good level of reliability.
Code 70 has a slightly shorter rail height but keeps the reliability high. The problem is, it’s kind of pricy as Micro Engineering is the biggest manufacturer of this code and their stuff, while looking awesome, carries with it some sticker shock. It also only comes in #6 turnouts.
Code 55 is becoming the new standard for modelers who are looking for decent reliability and better looks. Atlas code 55 has a good price tag and is pretty reliable, though there are some flange depth issues with older equipment. Micro Engineering offers code 55 with awesome looks, but it has a high price, and you only have #6 turnouts. Peco is another big player in the code 55 war. Their track is really code 80 rail buried in the ties further and so the flange depth issue is all but wiped out. The problem is that it’s pricey, can be hard to find, and it doesn’t look as prototypical as other brands.
Code 40 rail is for the purist. Micro Engineering is again on the scene with all of the benefits and drawbacks previously mentioned.
And that’s a quick tour of N scale track.