Question: HO Code 83 vs Code 100
R. Piscione
How many out there are using code 83 track? My father and I are planning a
new layout and he's pushing fro code 100 track. I'm pushing for code 83
thinking it would look better and we might as well be current. He's
worrying about some of our older equipment having trouble with the code 83
track.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Randy
ATSF01
I Hate to say it Randy. I Really like code 70 track from MicroEngineering of
fenton Mo. Its in the Walthers cat.
It for some reason looks the best over you other choices.
Things also track really well on it, with the exception of old AHM or Rivarossi
stuff.
We used it on our modular club layout. And I Am Very glad we did. The small
size of the rail looks very realistic in photos. See for your self, Just find
any photo that I have had published in the past 3 years. I have used code 70 in
all my work.
As for things not tracking, well thats not a bad thing if you think about how
it will help guide you faster to more prototypical equipment (You wont miss
the stuff that has deep flanges)
That could have been an issue with any club layout, and still is with clubs
planning layouts all over the country. To that I say dont plan a layout by
pleasing the less strick modelers it will only pull down the modeling standards
of the rest of the members and the Image of the whole layout.
Code 83 would be the next choice. It look's good painted and weathered. Deep
flanges run on it fine.
As for Code 100 its ok if you just plan to run trains around without scenery.
It's cheep. I plan to use code 100 for hidden trackage.,
That my spin on the subject
Kan Patterson
St.louis Mo.
PAULCONANT
In article <01bd7b5d$9704efa0$5354b5cf@imendez>, "R. Piscione"
<rpis...@netcom.ca> writes:
>How many out there are using code 83 track? My father and I are planning a
>new layout and he's pushing fro code 100 track. I'm pushing for code 83
>thinking it would look better and we might as well be current. He's
Like all things (in model railroading and life) it depends. Code 100 is
usually less expensive. The rails are high and look out of place until you do
a good ballast and rail painting job then they don't look too bad. Code 83 is
still high but not as bad as Code 100. From what I hear the deep flanged
equipment will run on it. Then of course you can go into smaller rails to go
real prototype but the expensive starts to rise sharply.
Tell me more about what you are planning to do and where you want to go with
it.
Paul
SLSFDL1632
If you can afford the difference- go with Code 83 especially the Atlas track,
the stuff looks great and there is no differnce in the operation of equiptment.
I wouldn't even worry about "deep flanges" until I got down to Code 55.
Micro Engineering is nice stuff but he has a distribution problem and his
prices are really high compared to Atlas. His Code 70 and 55 are really nice
but Code 83 should prove more affordable and give you enough of the right
look. You will also be pleased with the brown ties.
Good Luck...Happy Railroading whatever your choice!
Dave
in Kansas
R. Piscione
Paul, thanks for the reply. Here's some more info (see the bottom for the
previous note):
We're planning a not too large layout (2 levels, 9ft by 8ft) so the extra
expense is not too much of an issue. My thinking is that if we're planning
a brand new layout, might as well go with the most modern track.
The layout is basically two loops, one over the other, 3% grade (I hope),
small passenger terminal, double track all the way around, 30" radius on
the outside with 3" separation on curves.
It's looking like there will be very little actual straight track and
possibly very little completely level track.
Randy
------------------------
PAULCONANT
In article <01bd7bbf$63178e20$8453b5cf@imendez>, "R. Piscione"
<rpis...@netcom.ca> writes:
>We're planning a not too large layout (2 levels, 9ft by 8ft) so the extra
>expense is not too much of an issue. My thinking is that if we're planning
>a brand new layout, might as well go with the most modern track.
If you are thinking of going with Atlas track take a look at their track
designing software (Right Track). You can get a demo of it from Atlas' Web
site (http://www.atlasrr.com/welcome.html) It's fairly easy to use and a great
way to plan your layout before you start laying any real track. I've used it
several time over the last few years and it great to design and redesign a
layout. I've also used CADRail. CADRail is a lot more robust but has a steep
learning curve. Biggest problem I found was not using it for a year and then
having to remember how it works. There are several other track designing
software packages around.
<< The layout is basically two loops, one over the other, 3% grade (I hope),
small passenger terminal, double track all the way around, 30" radius on
the outside with 3" separation on curves.
It's looking like there will be very little actual straight track and
possibly very little completely level track. >>
Sounds a lot like mine. Lots of grades. The problem I've found with having a
lot of grades are the length of trains I could run and controlling the speed of
the trains. You have to constantly adjust the throttle to keep the train
running at a reasonable speed.
The downside of limited flat sections and straight track will be the number of
sidings for switching. Operations can be a lot of fun.
Becareful of having curve tracks coming into the the point side of switches.
Some engines will not recover from the curve when they hit the points and the
front trucks will derail. I learned that one with pike two.
The most important thing is have fun.
Paul
Robert Pearce
On Sat, 9 May 1998 SLSFDL1632 informed rec.models.railroad that :
>If you can afford the difference- go with Code 83 especially the Atlas track,
>the stuff looks great and there is no differnce in the operation of equiptment.
>I wouldn't even worry about "deep flanges" until I got down to Code 55.
But that depends on what you mean by "deep". I have some old ('70s)
Hornby stock which has problems on Code 100 PECO turnouts!
--
Rob Pearce
Chief Engineer of the Sump, Laisse and Huneausware Railway
Visit my web site at http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk/
Ron Gardner
Your father has a valid point. If you have a lot of older equipment you will
have trouble. Code 83 is far better looking, and if you are using RP25 wheels
you will not have a problem. I use code 100 for track that is not directly
visable and code 83 on the visable mainline code 70 for yard track and even
code 55 for industrial sidings. But my old Riverossi Big Boy is not compatable.
R. Piscione wrote:
> How many out there are using code 83 track? My father and I are planning a
> new layout and he's pushing fro code 100 track. I'm pushing for code 83
> thinking it would look better and we might as well be current. He's
Tom & Kim Byrne
R. Piscione wrote:
>
> How many out there are using code 83 track?
Go with the 83. I bought some Atlas 83 for a small Christmas tree
layout. That was a mistake because I got a chance to compare it close up
with the Atlas 100 on my layout. There is a huge difference. Now I need
to replace all the code 100 on my layout. The appearence is worth the
price difference. You will thank yourself later.
--
Tom & Kim Byrne
The proud parents of
Acosta's Sign of Good Faith, CGC
Acosta's Oro Negro Uriel, TT
Von Diamant Czar v Regalhaus
Rodney Stone
designing new layout for present house. have always liked the idea of using
different Code rails for mainline and yard track. my defunct layout used
Shinohara Code 70 throughout and had no problems with equipment. 'course I
only had 2 locos and a few cars.
But how do you connect two different size tracks? do you use a special
joiner? solder together??
I learn so much reading the questions and answere here. The relative merits
of barbecue and haggis spring right to mind.
thanks, from one with little experience.
Rod Stone
(rstone @ cfanet.com)
take the spaces out. anti-spam maneuver.
John Alaniva
There are two ways to do this. First you can purchase 'transition'
tracks to go from 70 to 83 and 83 to 100. These are avialable from BK
and Walthers. I believe Atlas sells transition joiners for 83 to 100.
Or you can make your own as follows:
1. Using the taller of the two codes, position a railjoiner on a short
length of track just as if you were going to join two pieces together
and solder it in place.
2. Crimp the exposed portion flat.
3. Solder a short length of the smaller code onto the flattened portion
of the railjoiner.
4. Dress the tops of the rail with a file to insure smooth joint.
John
DougTblood
In article <6jcisp$s...@nntp1.erinet.com>, "Rodney Stone" <rst...@cfanet.com>
writes:
>But how do you connect two different size tracks? do you use a special
>joiner? solder together??
>
>I learn so much reading the questions and answere here. The relative merits
>of barbecue and haggis spring right to mind.
>
>thanks, from one with little experience.
>
>Rod Stone
>(rstone @ cfanet.com)
I just did a module and used railcraft c83 on the siding; I used the Atlas
transistion joiners and they worked fine. The latest and greatest version
of the Atlas c100 joiners claim to be improved to mate both c100 and c83
though I've no idea how well they work....
Doug Trueblood
Bruce Z. Friedman
Walthers makes a Code 100 to Code 83 transition track. Its about 6" long and it
works wonderful also. They also make a Code 83- Code 70 transition track too. I
think the retail is about $5.95.
Bruce Friedman
Rick Stern
I've used various sizes of rail on my layout, from code 100 (in tunnels and
hidden track to code 40 on some little used spurs. My main line is code 83
and sidings are normally code 70 or code 55.
I find an easy way to connect different sizes is simply to put a rail joiner
in the large size rail, then squash it down with a pliers. Set the smaller
size rail in place and solder together so the inner "gauge" corners of the
rail are lined up. In a few cases you may need a little brass shim under
the small rail, and usually have to do a little touch up with a file in any
case.
Make sure the ties on either end (if handlaid track) allow the "wheel
travel" to be relatively level, e.g., ties under the small rail should be
slightly higher. If using flex track put a thin paper shim under the ties
of the smaller rail for a few inches from the joint.
This sure beats the cost of the transition tracks.
Rick
--
Remove "nospam" from address name before responding to this message
DougTblood wrote in message
<199805161606...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...