General > General Discussion

HO track code 83 or 100?

(1/3) > >>

WyldBill:
I'm curious what code of track you all are using? Not sure whether to go with code 83 or 100.  :-\
What were your pro's and con's of both and what made you decide on one over the other?
Thanks,
WyldBill

G8B4Life:
I haven't built any sort of layout yet, and at my current rate I don't know if I will ever get to but I do have a stash of track to be able to build something one day.

I have a stash of code 83 flex track as I was going to do Free-mo (until arrogant people killed off that enthusiasm) and code 83 is the standard for that. For anything personal I would build I would actually use code 70 (and I have a stash of code 70 rail for hand laying).

For the Free-mo build it came down to matching a standard; for the personal layout it came down to code 70 more closely matched the rail weight of my prototype. I suspect the latter thought methodology applies to many, many modellers and in the US code 83 comes close to what is apparently a common rail weight over there. I think the reason people still choose code 100 is because historically code 100 was always significantly cheaper than code 83 or 70, though that reason has been disappearing over the years. At least one other reason I've heard (only once) is that code 100 track is stronger than code 83 track. In other countries outside of NMRA influence code 100 was also chosen because deep flanged models couldn't run on anything smaller. We used to call them pizza cutter flanges!

- Tim

Alan:
Tim summed it up nicely. Match the weight to your prototype or to the usage.

Code 100 is very heavy rail. If I am not mistaken only the Pennsylvania RR used such heavy rail. I think 100 is so common because of the popularity/availability of Atlas Mfg Co track and the old pizza cutter wheels Tim mentioned. Code 83 looks more realistic. Operationally there is no difference.

It is more a visual thing. Looks more real when the main is heavier rail than spurs and leads. Code 70 or 55 combined with 83 looks good. Problem with code 70/55 is the availability of commercial switches. Code 83 paired up with 100 also works. Either combination looks better than an entire layout built with 100.

ON28:
Per the above, Code 100 scales to a rare 156 pounds per yard, while Code 83 scales to 132 pounds per yard, typical for North American mainlines. Your locos and rolling stock will also look better on Code 83. I used Atlas Code 100 on my lower deck because I had a stash but used Atlas Code 83 for my upper deck closer to operator eye level. I added a few Code 83 segments on the lower level for photography purposes. I'll add that there's less bouncing as trains go through C83 switches compared to Code 100, where I added .020 styrene in the frogs to minimize annoying wheel drop. Code 100 is also generally less expensive.

On the other hand, I've seen Code 100 track that looks great weathered and detailed. Not my work:

WyldBill:
Thank you all for your responses. I like the code 83 from Peco.....just not the extra cost.  ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page