Code 83 versus Code 100

[akinght]

I'm new to model trains.  That being said as I read about layouts I've not found anything that suggests which code track is better to use and why, if mentioned at all.  So my question to all of you experienced model railroaders is this: Obviously there is a height difference between 83 and 100 however what is the benefit if any of using one type over the other.  If the wheels of the truck are all standard with regard to the interior edge it should make no difference...right?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.  I plan on purchasing some flex track today however any suggestions would be graciously accepted.

Alan

[Woody Elmore]

Code 100 represents 152 pound rail - rail that is very heavy and was used only by big railroads like the Pennsylvania. 100 pound rail is very common and that would be represented by code 83 rail. Code 70 would be more for branchline service although I know HO modellers who use code 70 exclusively.

It is a matter of taste. I don't think that most people care that they are using code 100 rail - there are several makers and lots of accessory pieces. Code 83 is a bit more realistic in that it can be has with brown ties.

Flex track is cheaper than sectional track but you need a couple of modeller's tools to cut it. Bachmann track is widely used and you have the added benefit of nice looking roadbed.

Good luck and enjoy your trains!

[rogertra]

An easy way to answer that question is, other than for a few, very, very few miles of track on the Pennsy's, code 100 is way out of scale and toy like.  Code 100 was used back in the early day because of the steam roller wheels used on RTR rolling stock up until around the early 1990s, when all manufacturers began to use R.P. 25 wheels, which are a much finer standard.  Code 100 is also more durable for set track use when the toy trains were set up and taken down frequently.

If you are a "scale" modeller, then code 83 is good for track on major lines since the 1960/70s, code 70 is good for main track from sometime after W.W. I and for yard trackage these days and code 55 is good for pre-W.W.I  and minor trackage up to the 1960s/70s.

[akinght]

Thank you both.  After finding some literature on line comparing 83 to 100 and that which your replies stared it sounds like Code 83 is the logical selection (true to the cause of accurate reproduction/modeling).  Thanks for the infomation, I really appreciate it.

Alan

[Doneldon]

akinght-

I congratulate you on what I think is an excellent decision,
and one you most certainly will not regret.
                                                                   -- D

[rogertra]

akinght-

I congratulate you on what I think is an excellent decision,
and one you most certainly will not regret.
                                                                   -- D

Agreed, you can never go wrong with using anything that is scale or closer to scale, rail included.  If you'd elected code 100, you may have ended up regretting the choice.  I know I did but then changed to code 70 once I saw how bad code 100 rail looked.  Code 70 rail was better suited to my 1950s era.  I changed to code 70 flex track way back in the 1960s.

Ditto for set track, beyond my first train set, when I was a 12 year old,  I've never purchase any set track.  On previous layouts, it was code 70 flex track.  I even used code 70  even on my little eight foot x two foot switching layouts that I built when living in appartments. 

When I started the GER in mid 1980s, I chose to handlay all visible track.  Having said that, code 100 does have a place. I have used code 100 in my hidden staging yards because it's cheaper than scale rail and who cares what the track in hidden staging yards looks like, providing it works reliably?

[akinght]

Here then is presented an interesting situation.  I'm planning on constructing a layout modeling the mid 1950's.  Was Code 83 not standard during that era?  My initial thoughts were Code 83 for all track however it seems Code 70 might be more accurate given the time frame.  Then there is the convention of mixed track, Code 83 for main line use and Code 70 for branch line and or visible railyards.  As far as visually pleasing is concerned I plan on airbrushing the track, taking into consideration where the track is located and what its primary use is however from a connectivity stand point and smooth operation when mixing track from 70 to 83 to 100 (for unseen locations) I would suspect this provides a challenge?  I'm concerned that mixing 83 and 70 might provide for unreliable or unstable operations due to the height difference, would this be a valid concern?

[Jhanecker2]

I suspect if you only use modern equipment with  RP 25 wheels  you should be OK .  Older wheels might cause a problem .   Remember Rule #1 :  It's your railroad  .   Do what ever you want.  Have Fun.  J2.

[rogertra]

Code 70 is more likely for a 1950s model railroad.

If you want to use code 83 on your main track and code 70 everywhere else, that's a good compromise.  It's fairly easy to mix rail size, given a little extra care when laying the track.  I mixed rail sizes by the simple expedient of crushing the rail joint of the larger rail to give me a flat surface and then laid the small rail on top of the crushed rail joiner and soldered them together.  A little dressing of the joint with jeweler's files and away you go.  Easy.

[jward]

i have used code 100 to code 83 transition joiners where i mix rail sizes. they work just as well for code 83 to code 70 transitions. align the rail tops and the inside edges where the wheel flanges run, then solder the joint.

transition joiners are made by atlas.

[ebtnut]

This hasn't been specifically discussed here, but just for the record:  As noted, code 100 rail is very heavy and used only on short stretches of the PRR.  Code 83 approximates 132 lb. rail, which is fine for late steam era and post-WWII main line track, even up to today.  Code 70 rail represents 100 lb. rail, which was a common main line rail in the early 1900's, and a very common rail size on branch lines and secondary tracks into the modern era.  Many modelers today use Code 83 for their mains and Code 70 for passing sidings, yards, and sidings.  There is also Code 55 rail, which represents about 75 lb. rail, and (if it's still made) Code 40 rail which is 40 lb. rail. 

[skooksteve]

What code is EZ-Track?

[rogertra]

What code is EZ-Track?

HO E-Z Track is code 100

Like all entry level track.

[akinght]

So then main line track is typically Code 83, this I understand, and thank you all for this information.  It seems the more I learn the more questions are developed.  Take as an example a rail yard (that will be visible), if the main line passes through the yard this would remain Code 83?  Staging track in the yard itself would then be what, Code 70, Code 55, or would remain consistant with Code 83?    I would ask the same of rail that links individual business on the layout to the staging area, Code what (typically)?  I do understand that how the side rail is addressed or more accurately treated with regard to overgrowth, less ballast, a somewhat neglected appearance, to display a lack of heavy use will help convey that image however what code would be typical of that application?

[ebtnut]

In going through a yard area, the main line through track(s) would retain the heavy rail since they still get most all the heavy traffic.  Depending on the situation, some of the yard tracks used to build full trains may also use the heavier rail.  The storage and classification tracks are normally lighter rail since the traffic is either single cars or short cuts and all run at very low speeds.  When you get down to the level of sidings and spurs into industries, the era may make some difference.  In the steam era Code 55 rail would be suitable for the typical 40-foot, 40-ton box car.  Get to the modern era with the 100-ton cars becoming the standard, you need somewhat heavier rail, so Code 70 would likely be a better choice.