Everybody says that code 83 is more up to scale and realistic. I go to a LHS and compare the code 83 track with code 100 side by side. Except the color of the ties, I almost could not tell the difference of the rail height unless you really pay attention to it. So, do you think it is worth to get rid of all code 100 tracks for code 83 if I want to set up a layout.
Rudy
Differences include IIRC
Tie color.
Tie spike detail
Tie size
Tie Spacing
Rail height
If you are just starting a layout you cant go wrong with EITHER code 83 or 100…but if you intend to have a more realistic layout then CD 83 blows cd 100 out ot the water…so to speak.
David
Thanks David.
Rudy
The difference in rail height between code 100 and code 83 is so small that once the ballast and scenery are in, you can’t tell the difference unless you look VERY closely, but if you must have that prototype look for people to see, do the front areas (those closest to the viewers) with code 83 and do the rest in code 100. Being that the code 100 is cheaper, you’ll save some money. Why have prototype appearance where it can’t be seen.
RUDY: You are observant.
ATLAS MAKES their code 83 the same height as their code 100 (by using thicker ties) . - and they said you can’t fool ALL the people ALL of the time.
You’ll notice the rail is thinner. Newer tooling. Your trains will run equally well on both.
Other brands do not copy this, such as Peco. If you want more realism, buy Walthers.
If you don’t mind the black frogs, the code 100 is cheaper. It’s your choice.
I’m setting up my 4th layout and using what Code 100 I already have, But all NEW track and turnouts are Code 83. and 70.
The difference is only apparent if you put your eye at track level. Even then we’re talking 17/1000sth of an inch. The realism of other details will vary by manufacturer, but you can certainly have realistic spike details, etc with either size. I wouldn’t change from code 100 just because of the height. If other details on your current track are crude and you want a better overall effect then pick out a well detailed brand that is also code 83.
Enjoy
Paul
Thank you guys. My next question is either using cd83 or 100, how do you hide the rail joiners? They do not completely look realistic to me as the real railroad in the real world does not use those joiners.
Rudy
Good question here. This just and opinion, but some times we have to make sacrafices. In the real world, couplers don’t have trip pins hanging down either. Now, in the real world some rail is still connected by rail joiners, but not like we use. They are called “fish plates” and bolted to the inside and outside of the rail web. If one must have trackage without rail joiners, my solution would be to remove the ties wher the rail will join and use a jig or small vise to hold the rail in alignment and solder a piece of brass stock to the bottom of the rail. Or solder the rail joiners then with a Dremel tool or file remove the side of the joiner that shows. If done correctly, this will leave the bottom of the joiner soldered to both rails. Now that that is done we now have another problem-- maybe. That is expansion and contraction of the rails. Rail joiners would allow for this. Ken
My experience has been you don’t notice them much. If extreme realism is your goal then you might want to look into Proto 87. See this web site http://www.proto87stores.com/p87stores/index.htm for supplies.
Enjoy
Paul
I am using the Walthers code 83 joiners, although you have to crimp them down a bit to use them with Atlas code 83 track. In my opinion they look a lot better than the Atlas joiners (the Walthers have simulated bolt heads).
I am using Atlas code 83 flex and Walthers Shinohara turnouts for mainline and some yard track, and ME code 70 flex and turnouts (#6) for my industrial branches and spurs.
In my handlaid track, I do not use rail joiners at all. I too found them ugly, and they interfered with good vertical alignment of the rail on my carefully leveled tie tops. As was posted, Proto87 Stores makes some very nice faux joiner bars to glue on to the rail web (as well as other track details).
Without rail joiners, I found that spiking the end of the rail was sufficient to hold the ends in place and alignment (this was with code 70 rail in HO). The biggest problem with my technique was getting a smooth joint on curves because I had difficulty bending the rail ends to a consistent radius. I am investing in a rail bender to solve that problem this time around - will cut off the rail ends that don’t pass through the bender. I am also considering butt soldering the joints on curves prior to bending the rail, but don’t know if the butt soldered joint will be strong enough to pass through the rail bender.
Another consequence of not using rail joiners is that each section of rail must have an electrical feeder or jumper attached.
I am guessing my techniques for rail joinerless track would work equally well for the non-springy flex track such as Micro Engineering. Another experiment to verify.[:)] But I think it would be difficult to get smooth track joints on curves with the springy flex tracks such as Atlas without a soldered rail joiner to hold the rails in horizontal alignment.
my experiences, your choices
Fred W
I am also handlaying track, code 83 for On3, and have decided to fore go the ugly rail joiners. What I do is attach 1 feeder to the joint of 2 sections of rail. I will then leave a small expansion joint between the next section of 2 rails. For the joints that are on a staight section of track I will drop the feeder in place then lay (spike) the two rails and come back and prop the feeder up against the bottom of the rail and solder. When the joint falls on a curve I will solder the feeder to the rails prior to laying them, this way you end up with a continous curve.
Dennis
Yesterday evening at Boothbay RR Village, we were sorting and used packaging track from donated layouts to take to Springfield for sale. (Look for our booth if you want some bargains). In a couple of cases, the track was not marked code 100 or 83. Lacking a micrometer, the only way we could tell the difference for sure was to connect the unknown track to a known code 100 track and run a finger across the joint. We could feel the difference if there was one. The difference is that close.
That being said, for those going for a scale look, I have seen some layouts and modules that use c83 on the main line and c70/55 for sidings. You can see the difference there, and it looks good also. For myself, I am staying with c100 because of the lower cost.
In the old days, I couldn’t get the butt jointed rail to survive the bender, but you can solder it after bending and it maintains a nice smooth joint pretty easily. Now days I use flex track and butt joint solder the sliding rails, using a small piece of flat copper against the outside of the rail web for reinforcement. After weathering you don’t notice anything.
For realism, and to also handle the rail expansion possible issues, why not spike the end ties down after aligning the rails, and leaving the proper space between rail sections. Each 3’ section of track would have electrical feeders, so why worry about rail joiners? Will this work guys?
Thanks for the tip - I will try it out.
yours in track laying
Fred W
‘REALISTIC’ can cost you money. It’s also a matter of compromise: Cost vs. taste.
REAL RR’s dont use rail joiners. Rail is spiked to every tie with tie plates. Do you want to spike rail to each tie? If so, you can buy tie plates, real wood ties, Micro-Engineering rail, and hand lay it. Top end modelers do. YOU?
MOST of us settle for less. Perfection is a GOAL, not a destination. A Better question is How much talent and money can you afford to expend?
Your engines are not Steam, or not even Diesel Electric. They are TOYS. A scale mile (HO) is slightly over 60 feet. A loop on a 4X8 is approx. 1/5th of a mile - about 12 feet - or 12 pieces of Atlas fextrack, + any switches.
THOSE wanting somwthing better than Atlas, Buy it, (or build it).
I THINK you need to make that decision IF you set up your layout, WHEN you set up your layout.
Don, my idea wasn’t to go wild with protoism…I was just thinking that many of have feeders every section, so the need for rail connectors for electrical contact is void. So now the issue is how to align the track sections if you don’t use rail connectors. Many people glue down the sections, and also have a few nails in the ties to keep the sections in place. But when glued, nothing is going to move…so why have rail connectors was my point, looks a lot better, no electrical issues, temp expansion/contraction is no issue, so where is the problem with this idea?
I use 100 because my father has some old locos that have big flanges.
One train of thought I heard and it seems to be correct from what I’ve seen, is that the code 100 is good for main lines where there is a lot of traffic. Real railroads use more robust rail on mainlines as they have to replace it less often. You’ll notice in yards the rail is smaller than the main line as it handles less traffic, i.e code 83.
Feel free to shoot me down in flames but I heard this and had a look at the rail while on the train to work and it seemed to fit?!
Regards,
Nige.
I use code 100 on my main and code 83 in my yards. Ballasted and painted, I frankly can’t tell the difference, though I will admit that the ‘spikes’ in the Code 100 are a little bigger on the Atlas Code 100 than they are on the Sinohara Code 100 (if you’re looking at my layout through a magnifying glass, which I ain’t). As far as rail-joiners being obtrusive, after you paint the rails (I spray-paint everything with boxcar-red and grimy-black before I ballast the track), I frankly can’t tell where they are. I know they’re there, but painting your rails camoflauges a lot of things.
One versus the other? I don’t think so. I think it’s whatever floats your boat (or runs your trains, in this case).
Tom