Code Stability

[Switch Track]

Which track code offers maximum locomotive stability? In other words, would Code 83 be more likely than Code 100 to prevent derailments? Or is there no difference in stability between the two codes?


Thanks,

Tom

 

[NZRMac]

It really comes down to workmanship in laying the track, level, no kinks in the curves, no sudden elevation changes. Code 83 is more realistic but probably harder to work with.

Ken.

 

[lmackattack]

also If you have some engines made by model companys like IHC use caution as they use deep flanges that will ride up on the spikes or ballast if to close to the rails.I like to just stick with code 100 but I do think that code 83 will look better.

Trent

 

[malletman]

I will probably also use code 100 as I run several old AHM/Rivarossi engines with deep flanges. While the deep flange prevents using the code 83 or code 70 rail, I do find those engines dont tend to derail going thru the turnouts. Where as my newer mantua 2-6-6-2 with RP-25 flanges will tend to find all the less than perfect track work and either derail the pilot wheels or the lead set of drivers. I tend to use it as a track tester when I am initaly laying track, if its badly done, it will find it! Mike

 

[UP2CSX]

In theory, code 100 and code 83 rail should make no difference in how well a wheel operates. Except for the previously mentioned problem of deep flanges on older European equipment, the RP-25 flange provides plenty of contact area between the flange and railhead on both sizes of rail. The flange is there to counteract centrifugal force, which is always trying to make the wheel continue straight into a curve or continue in a curve coming back on to a straight. The flange does a goood job assuming that both the wheels and track are in gauge. The vast majority of derailing problems are because one of these is not in gauge. Using an NMRA gauge and checking both wheel and track gauge will solve 99% of derailing problems.