I am using all 4 sizes for display and demonstration purposes. I would lay some code 40 if it was available in HO scale.
Brad
it’s all code 100 (ho scale) most of it is Atlas but some of the switches and curves are life-like (which happens to be #100 even though it’s not specified by L-L)
Atlas flex-track is the greatest thing ever --my layout would not be possible w/o it.
Code 100, but I would really like code 83 and 70, but that’s not going to happen for a while…
Atlas 83 with Central Valley semi hand layed curve switches as needed.
(CVMW.com if you want to check em out)
Handlaying 83 and maybe 55 in the mining area.
All code 100 83 in the bridge
Mine is 100% hand-laid code 70 (including turnouts). It was done before code 83 became available.
I currently have code 83 and code 70 on my module, with a few inches of code 100 at either end to connect to other modules. My next modules will be similarly built, with some code 55 added into the mix.
When I finally build my home layout, it’ll have code 83 and code 70 as well, with code 55 if the next modules work well with that size.
Code 100…
EVERYTHING will run on it, it’s readily available and the least expensive.
Even though the profile is not prototypical, once it is weathered and ballasted…it looks good too.
no layout yet , but i have some peco and shinohara code 83 and some atlas code 100 (for staging tracks)
Mix of Code 100 & 83. Thinking about Getting me a bunch of Code 70 and 55 Though.
James
What good would it do to have different type tracks?
My plywood world is all code 83.
Simple; it lets you model the variations in rail sizes on a real railroad.
In HO, code 100 scales out to 160 lb/yard rail - larger than any rail used in North America (I think the biggest rail used here was 155 lb/yard, and not much of that). Code 83 scales out to about 135 lb/yard (modern mainlines use this); Code 70 is about 100 lb/yard; Code 55 is around 75 lb/yard; and Code 40 is around 40 lb/yard.
For instance, on my module I used Code 83 on the main (where my prototype uses 115 and 135 lb/yard); Code 70 stands in for the 100 to 90 lb/yard rail they use on secondary trackage. On the next module I’ll add code 55 for the 75 to 60 lb/yard rail that is still around in some really old track. I’ll also use stubs of code 100 at the ends so that I can connect to other modules in my group.
I’ve yet to see a piece of equipment that can’t run on code 83, and only once has anything had a problem on the code 70, and that was a passenger engine that shouldn’t have been on the pulpwood track anyway [:P]
Have switched over to 83.
HO Layout will be 83, with 70 on lightly used industrial sidings.
I used to be a code 100 fan until I saw photos of modelers that have Code 83 on their mainlines and code 70 or 55 for sidings. To me it these tracks look so much more realistic.
I especially like the Peco Code 83 (Man! It’s expensive). Like everything else, I’ll buy one or two at a time as I’m a big believer in that you get what you pay for.
i use code 100 only…it lasts forever even after years and years of brightboy cleaning and after it’s weathered you can’t tell the difference between code 100 and the other codes…chuck
I have switched all but about 2’ of my mainline to code 83. The other 2’ is code 70 that I kept from when my entire yard was hand-laid code 70. My logging scene is hand-laid code 70 over 20 years old. The smaller code rail looks so much better than code 100 especially since I model 1925.
100% - Atlas code 100
I like to use use code 100 because of the realistic appeal it has to me and because of its robust nature.
One consolation regarding Code 100:
The Pennsylvania Railroad used the heavy 155-pound-per yard rail on certain mainlines (the NEC?). Appearance-wise Code 100 is pretty close to it. If I’m not mistaken, Pennsy was the only one that used this thick rail.[;)]