What is your biggest layout woulda, coulda soulda? Mine is/was using code atlas 83 flex w/Peco switches instead of code Atlas 100 Flex w/Peco. Atlas and Peco code 83 are not compatible and every mating joint requires fitting and work. Code 83 is much more fragile and unforgiving of less than perfect roadbed. I have seen a lot of code 100 layouts and I cannot tell the difference without really looking hard, especially if the track has been painted an balasted. I would always advise a newbie to use code 100 over 83 for the first few layouts! That's mine, what's your woulda, coulda, shoulda?
Mine is the exact opposite... I started with Atlas Code 100 sectional and snap switches, which was all then replaced with Atlas Code 83 flex and Walthers/Shinohara turnouts. Shoulda started with Code 83...! Andrew'
Andrew' That just tells me you are one hell of a model railroader! Much better than ole Joe Daddy hisself! You da Man to make it work smooooth! JD
On my very first HO layout (built in 1982), I handlaid Code 70 track on Campbell ties, but since I couldn't scratchbuild turnouts worth a rip I had to substitute Shinohara code 70 number 4s. I shoulda learned how to scratchbuild turnouts, since the existing turnouts you can buy won't fit all situations. That Code 70 looked much better then even the code 70 flextrack I've used lately in spurs.
Because I still have over 40 older locos still running, I stayed with code 100 and have had no complaints, but then my interest is more in operation than in pictures, and I have all kinds of switches (turnouts) from #4 up to #14's but the #4's are no longer used at all. Track on the old layout was all brass, and the new one has all nickel silver. The old long flanges will clear all makes of code 100 track, but will chatter on code 80, so I wouldn't even attempt any code smaller. Besides it would cost too much time to turn down all the flanges I have, and cost to much to have it done for me. There is not much choice for me. If I were just starting out again, that could be another story because I think most of the manufacturers have now gone to the more RP-25 like shorter flanges. Like Joe says, I can't tell the difference between 100 and 80 by looking, and I'm not about to rip up all my track just to re-do it all in code 80 then have to turn all my wheel flanges to use it. I'm very satisfied with what I've got now and it works well and I only clean it once a year on the brass track, and haven't needed to clean the nickel silver track yet.
I've started my newest layout using all scale size rail; codes 83, 70, and 55. I have got to say that the Atlas code 83 flex is the best track I have ever worked with, easier even than their code 100. Nor are there any complaints about their turnouts and how well they work. Admittedly code 100 rail that is well weathered is hard to differentiate from 83 main line track, but on sidings it is (at least to me) a different story. Rail joiners are however, a problem. I have and have tried to use code 70 and 55 joiners - no, no. I am reduced to using N scale code 80 rail joiners throughout. These, in conjunction with a pair of needle nose pliers are giving me good connections between all three sizes. MEW code 70 and 55 weathered flex look terrific. However I found out that they are not very flexible. For my secondary or branch line I bought approx. 36 feet of the un-weathered code 70 and have painted it myself. It seems slightly more flexible than the factory painted track. Hopefully, this and a change in my track laying methods will make the code 70 and 55 easier to use.
I used code 100 on a small layout that I built a few years ago. I had painted, weathered and ballasted the track. But was still not satisfied by the rail size, as to me it just looked wrong and the Atlas code 100 switches was the major problem. I am one of those people who are finiky about the appearance of the turnout. I want a better looking frog such as you find on the Walthers code 83 turnouts. But anyways long story short, when I started building the module that I am slowly working on, I used walters code 83 turnouts and Atlas code 83 flex track. I painted and weathered the track my self and am really happy and it appeals to my eye better than if it where code 100. Any future rail laying done by myself for myself will be exclusively code 83 or smaller. ( pending the application)
I've build a new layout when the operation pattern did not satisfy. So I'm building my main yard Westport new. Westport I like scratchbuilding turnouts. :angel: Wolfgang
I have learned a few lessons on my layout 1. Drill holes under turnout throw bars in the roadbed/subroadbed for under layout switch machines - do this BEFORE you lay, glue, paint, and ballast all the track! Doing so afterwards is extremely time consuming and more difficult. Originally I hadn't planned on turnout machines under the layout. After deciding to install Tortoise machines, drilling the holes has been difficult and time consuming. 2. I used Atlas code 83 flex track for my layout, and PECO code 100 turnouts (PECO code 83 wasn't out yet when I laid track). I custom made all my transition rail joiners to connect the code 83 and code 100 track, which was fine, but later on when ballasting I figured I could have ballasted quicker and gotten less "clickity click" of wheels hitting ballast had I used code 100 on the entire layout. Code 100 provides more wheel flange clearance. 3. Since this was my first layout, I thought using foam for scenery would be easiest for my lack of skill, so my layout consists of 2" pink extruded foam on top of plywood. Doing so requires longer and thicker piano wire for my Tortoise switch machines. I really didn't use the pink foam for scenery to the extent that I thought I would so that is to say, I could have built the layout without it. Using foam as a subroadbed also prevented me the ability to nail down Caboose ground throws for turnouts. I had to use glue instead which wasn't reliable. 4. Paint the benchwork to seal it BEFORE building it. I found out the hard way that a layout shifts during different seasons according to temperature and humidity. Sealing the benchwork with paint nearly eliminates the humidity fluctuation issues. Painting the entire benchwork AFTER the layout is assembled was a big pain in the butt. I wish I had done it to the raw lumber before converting it to benchwork. But I got it done and my wife helped a lot. We spent a lot of time sitting under the benchwork staring up as we painted. We had sore necks when we were done. 5. Turnouts. I spent a lot of money on PECO turnouts because of their spring action which HOLDS the points in place. After all was said and done, I ended up taking out all the turnout springs because I used Caboose ground throws and then eventually Tortoise switch machines which do the same thing and make the springs obsolete. I realized then I could have gone with the cheaper Atlas switches, and with that, I could have used the code 83 turnouts and I wouldn't have wasted so much time on code 83 to code 100 track conversions.
Jason, You are right on here, plus, the Peco code 83 is NOT comptible with Atlas code 83 Flex. Peco switches are compat with MT code 83 thought. THe problem is the rail web width is wider than the Peco and the ties are not quite the same size, so a rail joint is misaligned vertically. See these photos of the differences. Atlas Flex 83 and Peco 83 Switch ME 83 Flex & Peco 83 Switch http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/500/Peco_ME_Code_83.jpg
Jason, Thanks for the info. Very good stuff, especially for a new guy like me. I recently went ahead and put together my yard tracks and turnouts directly on plywood, then wired them (soldered feeders from underneath) just so I could do a dry run, and never thought to drill holes for the turnout operators first. DOH !!! And it never occurred to me that I should glue the track down before I start wiring. Now I'll have to figure out how to unwire, glue the track, and rewire with minimum effort.
On subsequent layouts (After the handlaid Code 70), I used code 100 flextrack & sectional track & turnouts. On one layout, I slowly swapped out code 100 for code 83 in places, even using some stretches of code 70 in spurs. Since then, I've stuck with code 83 as the standard, with code 70 for spurs. If I could swing it money-wise, I'd go to code 70 for mainlines and code 55 for sidings, yard tracks & spurs for realism sake, but with all the coin I've invested in code 83 trackage, most likely it'll be 83 and 70 for some time. Had I not invested in so much 83, I woulda gone to 70, but I can live with it. Maybe I should go back to handlaid..................
I also, cant tell the difference betwen Code 100 and Code 83, its what, less than .20 inches, talk about Rivit Counting i see myself using Code 100 for a long time
If we're talking Atlas track here, it's more than just the rail height that is different. Most notable is the difference in the tie width and the tie spacing. When comparing Atlas code 83 and 100 side by side, the difference in the ties is night and day. However, when ballasted and painted, the it's more difficult to tell. That is to say, to the untrained eye and without looking real hard, you can't tell tell the difference. To those who have been in model railroading for a few years or longer and are used to working with and laying a lot of track, the difference in the rail height is noticeable. To the less experienced, you'd need a caliper to tell the difference in rail height. Jas
My opinion, code 83 or code 70 is hardly noticeable. Like Jas wrote, it's other points. The rail head width is much more visible than rail size. It's a big difference wheather you have 1mm or 0.8mm width! Even with weathered track you see the rail head. Wolfgang
ok, but, from a Technical point of veiw, Code 100 is eaiser to use? and another question. Is code 83, or even code 70 rail eaiser to cut than code 100?
Code 83 and code 100 both cut like a hot knife through butter if you use the Xuron rail nippers. Don't fool around with other cutters. Xuron is the final word in rail cutting. Well, I guess you can use the motor tool and cutoff disk, that works very well too - that makes a guaranteed flush cut. I have no experience with code 70 but I imagine it's the same.
Easier?? As Jason says, cutting is not an issue with Xuron. BUT, the COMPAIBILITY with other track, especially the highly tauted PECO switches is a very different matter. In Code 100 the PECO Switch works with ATLAS flex track just fine. WIth Code 83, the PECO Switch is a problem with ATLAS flex track. See the pictures I attached a few days ago. Plus, 100 is not as flimsy or flexible as code 83 which can be a blessing or a problem based upon the perspective.
My Xuron clipper cuts nickle-silver rail very smoothly, cuts brass rail if you hold it up close to the rivet of these clippers, but do NOT try to cut steel rail with them! I still have some 3' strips of blackened steel rail left over from the days we used to actually spike rail every 4th tie to Tru-Scale wood roadbed, and that steel stuff is stiff and hard! Besides, being steel it rusts pretty quickly! It chipped a notch out of one Xuron clipper! I don't notice much difference in cutting any size N or HO rail with the Xuron when the rail is nickle-silver.
watash, I have 2 notches in my Xuron. After I made the 2nd notch, that's when I learned my lesson that Xuron IS FOR RAIL CUTTING ONLY!!!! It's not for piano wire and it's not an all purpose wire cutter! LOL
