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.
We are building new modules for our club's modular HO layout. Code 100 is what is being specified, but I cannot see much reason for it, other than that I am told that Code 100 turnouts are cheaper that Code 83.
Most of the guys that I see running regularly at the club have new locos and new rolling stock, so the wheelsets are most likely to the newer RP25 spec. I have a lot of Athearn BB and Walthers rolling stock that came with plastic wheels. They never has any problems on Code 83. I have changed out all of my trucks to Kadee Code 88 wheelsets.
I just think that Code 100 rail is a little over-scale, and 83 is closer to the real-deal. I have had no issues with my Code 83 Atlas flex and Atlas turnouts with the original plastic wheelsets or the Kadee Code 83.
So any one else been in the same situation and decide to go Code 83? WHat's your story?
So far I have laid code 83 Atlas track for everything I have done including dual main lines and a 7 track double ended yard. I run everything from Atlas gold master series loco's and cars to Athearn Blue Box loco's n cars over it n everything is fine. I was fully expecting to have a derailment on my 32" radius horsehoe curve with my 60 car double stack train, but it looped around just fine. I do know that the code 83 switches and flex is a couple bucks more then the code 100, but I believe its due to the refining process as code 100 was the standard for so long...
Code 100 is suitable/recommended if the normal or occasional operators of the layout assembly will have older engines with the deeper non-RP-25 flanges on their wheels. With modern locos, Code 83 is a better, more realistic fit, but only on the heaviest rail mains with heavy tonnages. Code 70 is even better for lighter tonnages on spurs, some short lines, and such.
I guess the question is, how stuck are they on the requirement for Code 100, and why? From there, perhaps there is room to drop a Code with some reasoning and discussion.
We are building new modules for our club's modular HO layout. Code 100 is what is being specified, but I cannot see much reason for it, other than that I am told that Code 100 turnouts are cheaper that Code 83.
Does there need to be another reason? I suppose it could be argued that if one is doing an emergency fix at an exhibiton show it is a whole lot easier to find code-100 replacements than a code 83 counter part. As time goes on that is changing. It is a whole lot easier to find code 83 today than it was a decade ago.
I just think that Code 100 rail is a little over-scale, and 83 is closer to the real-deal.
Yes, you do not have to appologize and "just think" that. It is a statement of fact. The only prototype equivalent of code 100 rail I've ever seen was the class 5 rail from Trinidad Colorado to Dodge City Kansas on Santa Fe's race track. In real life it was huge. That track was reclassified to class 4 about 8? years ago. sigh - no more 110 mph.
So any one else been in the same situation and decide to go Code 83? WHat's your story?
I intend to use code 83 on my fixed layout just because of the visual effect reason. But all the modules that I do now have Atlas code 100. The reason is that I originally did a couple modules with code-83 track. After a hitting the exhibition show for a few circuits, I discovered that the track was constantly needing to be fixed, while other modules were not. At first I thought it was just hard luck that these two would always be the ones damaged. So at the next couple shows I paid careful attention. Sure enough all the modules got about the same amount of abuse. The difference was that a little bump on the code 100 rail did no damage. A similar bump on the code 83 would rip the rail right out of its delicate little plastic ties. I have replaced the track on those modules.
Generally modules are being shown to the general public and they will not notice the slight difference in the rail height.
(snip)
I intend to use code 83 on my fixed layout just because of the visual effect reason. But all the modules that I do now have Atlas code 100. The reason is that I originally did a couple modules with code-83 track. After a hitting the exhibition show for a few circuits, I discovered that the track was constantly needing to be fixed, while other modules were not. At first I thought it was just hard luck that these two would always be the ones damaged. So at the next couple shows I paid careful attention. Sure enough all the modules got about the same amount of abuse. The difference was that a little bump on the code 100 rail did no damage. A similar bump on the code 83 would rip the rail right out of its delicate little plastic ties. I have replaced the track on those modules.
(snip)
This is interesting information about the higher durability of Code 100 over Code 83!
I am going to code 83 but I have heard code 100 is more reliable because its not as delicate. However up here at the BNSF, the Mainline rail is pretty big, and then you go into the yard and the rails are considerably smaller, over half the yard and a lot of branchlines up here are made of rail from 1905 and that era and its small, I think it would be pretty realistic to use code 100 for the main and code 83 or smaller for yards and spurs.
