Code 100 vs Code 83

[r.cprmier]

Bob;
The only "realistic"  here is what grabs an individual.  Price difference is negligable-unless you are a real penny-pincher, and "realism" is in the eye of the beholder.  My snobbish statement still stands, of course...

In terms of a hobby shop saying he doesn't even carry 83, my thought is that he might have, as you inferred, gotten a great deal from a wholesaler who was only too happy to unload the stuff and still make some money on it.  It's all relative.

Richie the rail snob  (I'm stqrting to like that-sort of like 'killer Joe", Vinny the Chin, etc...)

[ebtbob]

Good Morning All,

       One thing that no one has mentioned yet is the fact that the smaller the code,  the more "perfect" you need to lay your track to avoid derailments.   I cannot remember his name,  but there is a well known model railroader in Texas(no Paul,  not you) who models the Santa Fe.  He completely tore down his model railroad,  the Cat Mountain Lines,  and rebuilt a new railroad using code 100 track because of the very problem of derailments.
        To discourage one from using one rail code over another is not helpful to bring new people into our hobby.   I agree that the code 83 may look better,  but as a user of code 100,  I have never let that bother me.  Besides,  once it is ballested and runs thru a scenery done area,   you hardly notice.    Some of my worst critics,  members of my local club and proud proponents of code 70 have been to my house,   and when looking at the scenicked(sp?) areas never even notice the rail size.
         To anyone new.....code 83 is a good way to go because there is now,  more variety in code 83,  especially when it comes to turnouts.
         Remember,   code 100 will always allow you to run any equipment regardless of how old and size of wheel flange.   For me,  I will take no dereailments over appearence any day of the week.   After all,  I am building a railroad to run trains,  then look good.
   
To each his own.......

[SteamGene]

I went with code 100 for the mainline and yards and code 83 for sidings (I have no real spurs) primarily for the cost difference.  Apparently that difference is coming down.  I also have a few IHC locos with their large flanges.  Finally, the C&O also used very heavy rail, though I'd have to go check on exactly how heavy it was.
In any event, I've heard any number of people say that they can't tell the difference once the track is ballasted.
Gene

[Conrail Quality]

When I finally get my layout built (right now I'm using EZ-track on the floor), I will certainly be using code 100. The choice was very simple for me. The only advantage to using code 83 is that for most mainlines, it is more prototypical. But since I model the Pennsylvania RR's Northeast Corridor, code 100 is actually the more protypical choice. Plus, code 100 has the advatages of handling locomotives with deep flanges, and being a little less derailment-prone.

[Atlantic Central]

OK, I'll chime in,

Bob Rule makes some realy good points here. One must decide how much time, money and skill will be invested (or is available) for track. And for me as well, reliable, derailment free operation is more important than perfect scale appearance.

I do use code 83, because it is a reasonable compromise between scale size and good operation. I use all comercial track and turnouts unless an unusual situation requires something custom and I do my best to avoid such situations if possible.

To acheave zero derailments and good operation I stick to NMRA standards, use very broad curves, choose my equipment well within the recommendations for those curves and turnouts and take great care when laying track.

I can and have built layouts with hand layed track - never again with the products we have available now.

I would never use smaller codes like code 70 - I have seen too many layouts with reliablity problems from small rail, commercail track or hand layed.

I do not use semi scale wheels or couplers since perfect operation with them requires different standards from the commercial track that is available.

I use mostly Atlas track and turnouts and have had great success with their code 83 line and I know many other modelers with the same experiance.

Well painted, weathered and ballested track looks good regardless of rail code, but there is no question that smaller rail has a more correct appearance. The real difference here is, are you looking at the railroad from an "overall" view, at say 3-6 feet way or are you getting "down and dirty" and examining the models/layout from a less than 2 feet away?

I would suggest that those who simply enjoy the broad view will be much less critical of lots of things. While those who "examine" the details will notice things like rail size, coupler and wheel size, and other finer details.

Neither is "wrong". I used to be like Rich, very into examining the detail, but once I got the bug to build a large layout and got more into operation, those aspects became less important to me.

Sure I still appreciate a well detailed model, but have gotten over the idea that every piece of everything on the layout needs to me the most accurate, super detailed model possible. There is such a thing as "good enough". I detail things that you can see, especially those things that you can even see at a distance. Proportion is often more important than detail in creating a sense of overall realism, but on the model that is closely examined, even an out of proportion detail is better than none if it will look "missing". These two ideas are in conflict, we must each choose the compromise that suits us.

Yampa Bob,

I find no fault with ebtnut or the way he expressed his thoughts. I too have used the discription "serious modeler" and several years ago it was quite the hot topic on this board. As someone who has been involved with model trains since 1967, worked in the industry, been/are an active member of several noted groups/clubs and reached a certian level of acomplishiment that has been reconized by my peers in the hobby, I will call myself a Serious Modeler and an Expert, at least in some areas of the hobby. Failing to reconize personal acheivement is a failing of our current society, a failing I will not accept. I have respect for those in this hobby who deminstrate skill and knowledge and I expect the same in return if I deserve it.

This hobby is diverse and great fun, but like most worthwhile pursuits, skill, learning and acheivement raise the level of satisfaction for most people.

Everyone will make different compromises based on their skills, space budget, interests, etc - that is to be expected. Mature people on both sides of any issue should respect that. Stating common facts like "most serious modelers us code 83" should not insult you Yampa Bob - it is most likely a true and provable statement.

Sheldon

[r.cprmier]

Good evening, Sheldon and all;

While I am no "scale-rule Richard" (only a rail snob...), I enjoy the finest detail I can achieve-and that is sometimes at an awful price-like losing most of my marbles into the box of one of Steve's kits-but they do work up into a beautiful model.

This is also another facet of this hobby-fine scale.  I can respect the other guy who has a life that is vastly different than mine.  I have found that code 83 and 70 do work with fine-scale-but you just have to be willing to fuss a lot with your trackwork.  To me, the end result is worth it.  There are some magnificent layouts built with code 100-in both HO and N, I may add.  As you say, once the track has been finished with ballast, etc, the size thing simply can vanish into the surround; especially once you have passed Male Mid-life Crisis...and your eyes have gone to hell in a handbasket.

It would be grossly unfair to anyone in any hobby for another peer to start mandating something as petty as rail size to others-especially to the newcomers and the kids; they need the encouragement of all of us "old(er) salts"; the guys who have made the mistakes, miscalculations, have the wounds and scars of experienced model craftsmen, that only time (and maybe a little stupidity) can produce.  My work isn't the worst, but I am extremely humbled every time I see some of the pictures Lanny and some of the others have put up here on display. 

Bob Walker has an excellent article in this issue of RMC; it deals wit hjust this sort of thing.  I suggest to all to give it a read.  Not only is it good, but Bob's usual wit and humour makes it another greatly entertaining read.

Richie the rail snob

[SteamGene]

There is a great deal of difference between:
"model railroaders use..."
"serious model railroaders use..."
"some serious model railroaders use..."
"many serious model railroaders use..."
"most serious model railroaders use..."
Gene

[barrowsr]

EBTBob,

The gent you mentioned is Dave Barrow - a frequent contributor to Model Railroader.

Robin

[geoff]

I definately like the look of the code 83 track but I am using code 100 on my large HO layout for two reasons. First I have found it to be a little more robust and trouble free and second I have one hell of a lot of brand new code 100 Peco turnouts I got a real deal on, $8 to $10 ea. Also, finally Atlas has come out with a DCC friendly code 100 #8 turnout at a very reasonable price.

[Yampa Bob]

Rich
You described me precisely.  My right eye went bye-bye last year due to Macular Degeneration.  Close work with the left requires visor/mags and really bright lighting.

I actually praise the Lord for this, because in spite of the handicap, it has brought out crafting abilities I didn't know I had.  My fingers have become more sensitive and agile, and a lot of things get done by feel. 

In life you have to "roll with what's thrown at you", and I'm on a roll now. With Lanny's help and encouragement I'm even getting into super detailing. 

Initially, a guy at the hobby shop said I wouldn't enjoy and couldn't handle HO with my eyes.   He was so wrong.  No matter what, if you can dream and visualize it, you can do it. 

I use sectional track because I enjoy the wheel clack, that rhythmic tune I hear when we rail fan by the crossing.  I don't want or need sound.  Whenever my wife runs the trains she goes "Toot-Toot" and the dog starts barking.  The metal wheels "sing" in harmony, and I fall asleep on the floor. LOL   

Bob

[TonyD]

Gosh, sorry to hear about the MD Bob, my dad has that, got to have a sense of humor don't ya? Hey, I got a dozen ties from the 1920's, D&H and Rutlands, torn up in the 70's. They are black. Sometimes gray- are white on cold winter days, but in general, black. NEVER were brown TTBOMK. Now, I've 'seen' brown ties before, weren't ties tho, but rusty steel 'sleepers' in far flung giant termite country, like tremors, only after creosote. And 83 is 'unforgiving' isn't it? Kink or torque once, it don't go back. thro that one out!. Some of my favorite models can't do 83 without rattling their teeth, I have no intention of machining the wheels or giving them up for what's 'top of the line' but on the bottom of the ditch...Yep yep yep, a bit of time with ballast, no one knows whay 'code' you have... are people's trains and scenery so boring visitors look at the track??? nothing else attracts their attention on there?? or must we all strive to be the Rachel Hunter of the MR world??? on the cover of MRC..... 

[r.cprmier]

Bob, Tony and all;
The one thing to keep in mind is the distance perspective.  For example; my engines are painted not black-but a mixture of black, gray, and blue.  Also, I will use a rub and buff of a metallic purple to give me a touch of oxidation to the paint.  A small tube of this stuff will last me two lifetimes, unless I go into faux pottery or something...

In terms of track and ties, I would try to avoid the black finish, and go with warming it up to your satisfaction.  I use a varegation; which means using several brushes and some acrylic paint.  This looks convincing at a distance.  If you think about seeing a musical in The City or something, all the girls always look really sexy with all the makeup; but at a distance, it is really toned down-just for that reason, only in reverse.

I guess in summation, thedistance thing mandates the softening of the colours one might see up close; at least to one extent or another.

Rich the rail snob

[grumpy]

Even the ugly girls look good at the end of the night just before the bar closes.
Don

[Atlantic Central]

An excelent reason not to drink in the first place.

Sheldon

[grumpy]

Sheldon
That should be excellent.
Don