Hello. I have been out of the hobby for two years now. (in the sense that there has been no model railroad) But keep up fairly good on modeling information. One thing that I am not sure about is track. I am starting up a new layout that is 15x8 and 60" high, well within eyesight for detail. I am not satisfied with the common Atlas code 100 flextrack that looks more european that anything. I want something with prototypical spikes and tie plates yet easy to lay.
One thing I have been told is Micro Engineering, but I can seem to only find code 100 and code 70. I have also been told that their flextrack does not lay well. Does anyone know about this?
Also, Is the Atlas code 83 better than the 100?
Opinions, comments, facts, anything is welcome. Thanks!
I got some code 55 that I laid and did not find it to be a problem in handlaying. This is in N scale yet. The thing is that one can argue about which is better but it also comes down to what one is trying to model as well. A nearly abandoned spur is more than likely to be lighter–hence a smaller code—like 70 in your case.
As far as which is ‘better’–again–it depends on a number of things. Generally though there is really not that much of a difference between the two[:)]
Your only other choice besides hand laying the track is Model Power flex track which is probably the cheapest but the worst of them all. The track sections have a lot of flash that has to be cut off with a hobby knife before running a train down the rails. I’d stick with the Atlas or Micro Engineering flex track. The apperance of the Atlas code 83 track is much better than their code 100. The tie color is more prototypical than the solid black code 100 rail but it’s a minor flaw that can be fixed with a little rail and tie paint.
I find it hard to believe you don’t like the Atlas track. It’s the easiest to lay down because one of the two rails slides so easily. Micro Engineering track is the hardest to lay because it’s so stiff. You have to place the track against a solid surface and then take a board and drag it along the tips of ties over and over again to make it bend…chuck
well it’s not that I dont like the atlas track, it does lay nice. I just feel the details it offers are not very prototypical. I prefer a visible spike with tieplate under the rail. I think a part of me has a small fear to run code 70 rail because of flangeways hitting on spikes etc. I am modeling 1969-70 so of course there was more 112lb. rail in comparison to todays 132+lb. rail, and i would like to reflect that.
I wish i could find an accurate picture of what the code 83 flextrack from Atlas looks like. If it’s anything like the 100, i am going to try to avoid it. Like i said, spikes and tie plates.
Where might i find information and products, where to buy etc. on hand laying track?
Remember the code 100 is the same has has been around since they switched from fiber to plastic ties. There is only one very fat “spike” per tie, the tie plates just a flat blob, the ties are thick. The code 83 was molded much more recently and the state of the art for detail in plastic is much better than it was. The code 83 has two spikes per tie, the ties are thinner, have better wood detail on them.
Still as the others have pointed out code 83 is still really heavy rail. For close eye detail code 75 or code 70 would look much more normal. For industiral track code 60 or 55 would look even better.
not much difference in laying atlas code 83 or 100 but 83 looks better but costs more. i started with 100 but went to 83 on my last addition. personaly i like atlas and would use only 83 if starting over, but 100 isn’t bad and i’m sure not going to change it. when painted and ballasted 100 doesn’t look that bad and when laid right both run very well. i’d stay away from atlas #8 turnouts in both codes. B&M man
Hand lay with CVT ties and ME rail is probably as easy as flex track and a lot better looking. I started making turnouts for my upcoming layout using code 40 , code 55 and a branch line of code 70 rail. Code 40 and 55 rail on CVT ties is very doable but needs a few more track gauges to get right. I made some home made from washers and machine screws that work really good. My turnouts take about 2 hours to build but are flawless. Semi-scale wheels don’t even click on the frogs. An up close layout like yours will benefit from added joint bars and other details.
Try a small section and I believe you will hand lay your whole layout.
I have recently moved to a house with room for a smallish layout here in Florida and am in the process of working out how to best make use of as much of what I previously had built around the walls in my basement up in Pennsylvania. It’s the usual - “L” girder, plywood/homosote, hand-laid code 83 and 70, hand-laid turnouts (laid in place when I got there) that bring a smile to your face, they’re so smooth!
The problem is, I have some leftover rail of both sizes that I can use and maybe a film cannister-full of “code 70” spikes left, but not many ties. I can’t really remember what brand of ties I used back then (Campbell “profile ties,” maybe?) but I found the six formulas I had for tie dye (not the t-shirt kind [;)]) and the cans of wood stain I used are still useable. Any suggestions as to which brand of ties to use?
Spike detail on Atlas code 83 (and some other makes) looks best when unnoticed/unseen. It is better than some: at least the spikes don’t look like grapefruits. Still, it is distracting seeing over-sized spikes, spikes in the middle of the ties, two spikes directly opposite each other, and absence of tie plates (if expected).
You don’t have to use exactly the same ties - although Campbell ties are still available. Most prototypes would see some variation in ties from area to area, and over time, too. Specs would change, available lumber would change, and the source sawmill might change as well. So as track was built, the ties and rail could easily be different, depending on which year the track was laid, and where the supplies came from.
Early on, 8ft ties were the norm, but by the '50s 9ft was more typical. Cross sections of 5x7 or 6x6 were used in the 19th Century; wider is used now. Creosote and tie plates first started being used for Class 1 mains around 1900 - but the original Western Pacific was completed in 1922 with light rail and without tie plates or creosote (a lot was relaid very quickly to heavier standards immediately afterwards).
For model ties, I like Mt Albert because they are cut accurately to a specific scale size. I also have some Timberline redwood ties (not nearly as consistent) left over from previous layouts. Because I model coastal Southern Oregon - where stands of redwood existed - and in an era before tie plates and creosote - redwood ties work well for me. They require no stain and some will weather naturally over time, just like the prototype. When my stock runs out, I am contemplating getting
Code 83 represents about 135# rail, not unusually heavy for the 21st Century; however, if you are modeling the fifties then 135# rail is pretty heavy for that day and age. Before I converted to N-Scale in the early '80s I was using Code 83 and Code 70. Were I to go back to HO-Scale today I would probably use that again but would use Code 55 for industrial trackage.
