Track code

[paharleyman2001]

Hey guys haven't been on here in a while due to training to go to afganistan in March. What is the best track code to use I have heard 83 100 what is more realistic and if anyone has a good place or website where I can buy 50'ft coal cars please let me know the 50 footers is what i am into including tankers also thanks for the help and info guys see you when I
get back out of the feild

 

[jeffrey-wimberly]

If you're going for realism, 83. If you're going for lower price, 100.

 

[NH Mike]

One plus for code 100 is if you have any equipment with the deep flanged wheels. Some will run on code 83 and some won't. None will run on code 70 if you use that for sidings off your code 83 main. None of this is a problem if all your equipment has RP25 wheels contours.

Best wishes and God's blessings for a safe deployment and return home.

 

[Selector]

Bear with me here:

Why are you concerned about the 'best' code to use? What is your understanding of the purpose of having such codes in the first place?

The codes were introduced for the sake of appearance and fidelity to the real weights per yard of typical rails across the continent. Code 100 was the first introduced, still widely available, is robust and inexpensive comparatively, and it looks not too bad in ground-level images if the rails and ties are painted up and weathered. Some would beg to differ, saying the rails look huge.

Code 83 scales out to about 140 pounds per yard rail, give or take. That is beefy rail found in modern times on the most heavy tonnage tracks. The highest weights used on the modern era (1930's and on to the present, say), would be the 155 pound rail used by the Pennsy and a couple of others. Code 100 works out to 165 pound rail, somewhat heavier than any in use on the Class 1's...ever.

So, what do you want to model? ARE you "modelling", or would you just like a code/size of rail that won't have any raised eyebrows from onlookers who know better? If you are modelling a short line with moderate to light tonnages and track loading for the medium engines, then Code 70 is probably what you would want. That works out to near 85 pound rail, typical for lighter spurs and industrial sidings where axle loadings are an important factor.

-Crandell

 

[paharleyman2001]

code

The reason I am wanting to know the code of track is because i want it to look as real as possible I want what is being used out there and not have to worry about it in the future.

 

[lmackattack]

I used code 100 for the last 20 years as code 83 was harde to find and pricy.

If I was to build a new layout I would go with code 83 for mainlines and code 70 for sidings.

Code 83 looks more to scale for main line rail and 70 for lighter rail. if I recall code 100 in HO scale = about 1' scale foot tall!. heavy!

 

[trailrider]

The reason I am wanting to know the code of track is because i want it to look as real as possible I want what is being used out there and not have to worry about it in the future.

If looks are your primary concern, and you are just starting out modelling a Class I railroad, either present-day or, say in the 1940's-1960's, then Code 83 is probably what you are looking for. Virtually all, current production or even fairly recent (last 20 years) production locomotives and rolling stock will work fine on Code 83...IF you are reasonably careful in laying the track.

I have been in the hobby off-and-on for the last fifty-five years. I am currently in the process of building my third major layout in a 14 x 14 purpose-built room we added recently. I've been out of the hobby for about the last 20 years. As a result, I have a LOT of older equipment, and a WHOLE LOT of Code 100 track and turnouts, some including brass double-slip turnouts, and fiber-tie flex track, salvage from layouts I built as a teen. For that reason, and to insure reliability of operation with all of my equipment, I am sticking with Code 100, except in a couple of places (a turntable transition, for example) where I'm "forced" to use Code 83. Can others tell the difference? Sure, I suppose. But I'm after the overall impression, and reliability. Secondly, although Code 100 is slightly over-height, it is fairly close to rail used on some of the major mid-Western lines in the 1950's, where high-speed passenger trains were a major factor in the size rail used.

Hope this helps a bit.

Green board, all!
Trailrider

 

[Irongrave]

If i could do my layout over I would go with code 83 rail is a good choice for modeling then code 70 for sidings and such

 

[hamltnblue]

If looking for realism start with code 83. To go further you have to look at the different brands. Some look better than others.

 

[Beachbum]

One plus for code 100 is if you have any equipment with the deep flanged wheels. Some will run on code 83 and some won't. None will run on code 70 if you use that for sidings off your code 83 main. None of this is a problem if all your equipment has RP25 wheels contours.

I have one old Athearn engine that jumps as it goes over a C83 turnout frog, which I think is due to oversize flanges. None of my other engines or cars do that. I like the look of C83 better but there are many outstanding layouts such as David Barrow's CM&SF(s) that use C100.

 

[hamltnblue]

Probably not a flange problem. Have you watched it as it jumps? Sometimes the points or the main rail where the point joins needs filing. Out of gauge track or trucks will also cause that.

 

[paharleyman2001]

tarck codes

Hey thanks guys for your info it really helped alot you people really know your stuff and one more question is there codes that will match up I seen some where I think 100 and 83 will match up I forget what scale I think it was 83 Ho scale and 100 O scale I think can you help me with that.

 

[diburning]

If all else fails, you CAN mix different code rails. You can get a transition rail joiner which is stepped to allow for the difference in height.

Or, you can put cards or something under the code 83 rail, then use a code 83 rail joiner and jam it into the code 100 rail. With the code 83 rail shimmed up, it will be a smooth transition. The model RR club I belong to shims the code 83 peco switches to match the rail height of the code 100 main line as they have found it to be more reliable and stable than using transition joiners.

 

[trailrider]

As was just posted, you can mix HO Code 83 and Code 100, either by using special transition rail joiners (they can probably be ordered from Walthers or, I know Caboose Hobbies in Denver, CO, has them. As was said, you have to shim the Code 83 where the two codes meet. The transition rail joiners are a bit flimsier than regular Code 83/100 joiners, but you can also help that by soldering the tracks to the joiners.

There are also some transition track sections that I've seen at Caboose. Not sure who makes them, but you can order them from Caboose Hobbies. These transition sections are straight, so they might not fit exactly where you might need them near curves.

Green boards, all!