What code track 83 or 100

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Building a new layout in HO. What code track should I use and why?
What is the advantage of code 83 over 100 or should I use another. Looking at Atlas brand.

2

I would suggest Code 83. Mainly because it’s smaller rails and ties make it look much more “to scale” than the larger rail and ties of Code 100, which in my opinion look too “toy like”. Just my [2c]

3

[#ditto] yea what he says!!!

4

pls6, I am using a mixture of Atlas code 83/100. Two levels; lower level staging up through helix is code 100 as the code 100 rail and switches are a bit cheaper than code 83. Upper level is code 83. There are small pieces of track who’s name escapes me at the moment that allow one to bridge between 83/100.

5

Here is why you might choose Code 100.

  1. Cost, it is usually cheaper.
  2. Availablity. If it is what you can get easier locally, this may be a benfit when you need that extra piece at 4:00pm on a Saturday for Sundays project work.
  3. If amy of your trains are older and have deeper flanges.

If any of the above are not critical to you, or are not an issue at all choose Code 83 every time.

6

It is a transitional track. I saw some in the walthers catalog. Go www.walthers.com and search for something like transitional track or something like that.

7

I don’t think there’s a “right” answer here. As I see it, there’s one issue to ponder:

Code 100 is easier to find/get at the LHS and other sources (though this is changing), easier (many say) to work with code 100 flex track, a little more durable in terms of installation, cheaper (by ~1.00 per turnout, a few cents per flextrack section), no issues with flange depth (this only occurs on some rather old equipment (e.g. reported on 1960’s-1970’s Rivarossi). Code 100 is not prototypical and is a little bulky looking to many folks. Many would suggest this appearance issue is significantly reduced once the track is ballasted, and is a non-issue where rail/track height is not visible (i.e. tracks embedded in streets in a traction/cityscape type layout).

Code 83 is nicer looking.

As I see it, that’s it. Code 100 has it over 83 in pretty much every aspect other than appearance.

Now, this is where I should tell you that I use Code 83 myself, so I’m not advocating code 100. I’m simply saying that the appearance issue rules the day. I truly feel code 83 looks better, and makes the locos/rolling stock themselves look better.

I consider the other issues rather minor. With the cost of a layout, adding $50 or so to the total cost of all my track is bearable. I don’t find it difficult to work with, and certainly have no equipment that has flange issues… In other words, the “downside” of code 83 is worth it to me in order to have what I feel is nicer looking track.

Your decision on that matter is really one only you can make.

8

While I use code 83, the truth is that code 100 track that is painted, weathered and balasted properly looks very good and is harder to distinguish from code 83 than most people think. I think it is a little more forgiving for a beginner as far as getting track laid that avoids derailment. I would consider your skill level vs. desire for realism before making the choice. - Nevin

9

I am using Code 100 mainly because of flange issues. I have a large assortment of trains from my grandfather that will not run on the Code 83. While you can easily tell the delta beween the two. It is not a big enough differance to me look wise.