Other than the difference and rail height and color of the ties, does code 83 have any advantages over 100. Only reason i ask is im starting a new layout, i have aound 300 hundred feet of 100 flex. Do some loco's and rolling stock do better on 83 vs 100? If i change now is the time before i start laying track.
code 100 vs 83?
- Thread starter rwbartel
- Start date
ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
DanRaitz
Active Member
The ONLY advantage C83 has over C100 rail is in appearance. Code 83 rail is closer to scale size then code 100.
You won't have any problems running your trains on C83, but if you go any smaller i.e. Code 70 or Code 55, you will have problems with older wheelsets. On some older cars & loco's the wheel flanges were very large "pizza cutter's" and they will hit the ties on C70 or smaller rail.
The main advantage of using C100 vrs C83 would be cost. C100 is usaully a lot cheaper then C83.
If I were you, I'd use C83 for all visable trackage and the C100 for all hidden track, i.e. Staging tracks.
Dan
You won't have any problems running your trains on C83, but if you go any smaller i.e. Code 70 or Code 55, you will have problems with older wheelsets. On some older cars & loco's the wheel flanges were very large "pizza cutter's" and they will hit the ties on C70 or smaller rail.
The main advantage of using C100 vrs C83 would be cost. C100 is usaully a lot cheaper then C83.
If I were you, I'd use C83 for all visable trackage and the C100 for all hidden track, i.e. Staging tracks.
Dan
jeffrey-wimberly
Dr Frankendiesel
A friend of mine uses code 93 on the front area of the layout and code 100 everywhere else. People looking at it assume that what they see farther away is the same as what's in front of them. As for myself I use code 100 throughout. Once it's ballasted it's usually hard to tell anyway.
lmackattack
old school
I used code 100 on my last layout but If I was to start a new layout it would be code 83 for main and code 70 for sideings. not becauuse of performance but I like the looks of it better...
Selector
Well-Known Member
In terms of performance/operations, there should be no difference between Codes 100 and 83 if both are laid with care and knowledge about rail systems.
There is an appreciable improvement in appearance due to the disparity in rail heights, but it isn't all that much. Seventeen thou in a photograph will be apparent to the discerning eye, but not to most viewers. There would be quite a substantial difference, and an evident one, if the comparison were between Codes 100 and 70. Same scene, same engine coming toward the camera, same camera position, and you'd really notice the difference. And Code 70 is much more likely to be what is found on a typical main or on spurs. Code 83 represents a hefty weight of rail that only heavy freight and coal haulers would want in place.
As for the ties and such, really, once you ballast and groom it carefully, glue it, and then weather everything to look like a real main line or well-used spur, except for joiners or spike heads, there's little to tell, not even the colours of the plastic ties. In fact, the brown in plastic ties is not very realistic, and they are too translucent and uniformly shiny. They should be dusted or painted with acrylic paints to look more like greasy, grimy and weathered wood.
Crandell
There is an appreciable improvement in appearance due to the disparity in rail heights, but it isn't all that much. Seventeen thou in a photograph will be apparent to the discerning eye, but not to most viewers. There would be quite a substantial difference, and an evident one, if the comparison were between Codes 100 and 70. Same scene, same engine coming toward the camera, same camera position, and you'd really notice the difference. And Code 70 is much more likely to be what is found on a typical main or on spurs. Code 83 represents a hefty weight of rail that only heavy freight and coal haulers would want in place.
As for the ties and such, really, once you ballast and groom it carefully, glue it, and then weather everything to look like a real main line or well-used spur, except for joiners or spike heads, there's little to tell, not even the colours of the plastic ties. In fact, the brown in plastic ties is not very realistic, and they are too translucent and uniformly shiny. They should be dusted or painted with acrylic paints to look more like greasy, grimy and weathered wood.
Crandell
Last edited by a moderator:
IowaFarmBoy
Member
Many articles I have read where individuals or clubs use code 83 for appearance also mention that hidden track is often code 100. I do not know if anything other than cost is the reason.
As already mentioned, ballasted and weathered code 100 looks pretty good and the oversize rail is less noticeable. Of course code 83 track that's ballasted and weathered looks great but my old eyes can't see much difference if I am 3 feet away.
I have been a model railroader for years. I still have a box of code 100 brass track in storage. In that box are a couple of turnouts with fiber ties.
I use code 100 because I had lots of it from before code 83 was introduced. If starting from scratch I would probably use code 83.
As already mentioned, ballasted and weathered code 100 looks pretty good and the oversize rail is less noticeable. Of course code 83 track that's ballasted and weathered looks great but my old eyes can't see much difference if I am 3 feet away.
I have been a model railroader for years. I still have a box of code 100 brass track in storage. In that box are a couple of turnouts with fiber ties.
I use code 100 because I had lots of it from before code 83 was introduced. If starting from scratch I would probably use code 83.I've never measured, nor seen specifications, but I assume the height difference is insignificant for purposes such as overhead clearance?
________
PERSIAN COOKING
________
PERSIAN COOKING
Last edited by a moderator:
BN8002
Did someone say B-unit?
height difference would be insignificant for overhead clearance...
I used 83 on my layout because I didnt have any 100 laying around. My dad used 83 for the visable sections of his layout and 100 for his reverse lopps/staging because he had it laying around. The club I used to belong to handlayed 83 in all the visable sections and used code 100 flex for all hidden track.
I used 83 on my layout because I didnt have any 100 laying around. My dad used 83 for the visable sections of his layout and 100 for his reverse lopps/staging because he had it laying around. The club I used to belong to handlayed 83 in all the visable sections and used code 100 flex for all hidden track.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)