Code 83 track regrets

RGW1 Oct 20, 2021

  1. RGW1

    RGW1 TrainBoard Member

    439
    290
    16
    I am starting to regret building my layout with code 83 track. Most Rrivarossi steam will not run right unless I file down the flanges , the same for a lot of Mehano /IHC steam. Later Bachmann is fine and Mantua are ok except for some lead trucks. Older cars are the same Rivarossi passenger cars are a no go.

    Maybe should have just went with code 100. However code 83 does look nice.

    Just venting after my latest build did the flange clicking on my first test run.
     
  2. Dave1905

    Dave1905 TrainBoard Member

    215
    130
    19
    Just to be clear, the real problem isn't the track, the real problem is that the older, cheaper equipment has huge, oversize flanges. If the wheelsets are standard flanges then you can run down to code 70 or even 55.

    If you are running equipment with the "pizza cutter" flanges then yes code 100 will work better.
     
    GP30 likes this.
  3. Shortround

    Shortround TrainBoard Member

    1,950
    900
    45
    Isn't that something we should look into before laying track. The age of the equipment to go on it. I want older '40 box cars but will need to change the wheels if there older ones. On both gauges.
     
    Doug Gosha and GP30 like this.
  4. RGW1

    RGW1 TrainBoard Member

    439
    290
    16
    The problem is when I get a idea for project using older trains. However some IHC steam that is newer also will hit on switch frogs. I will use a dremel tool to grind down the driver flanges. The IHC 2-8-0 project that I am working on was hitting one its first test run , so was causing some frustrations
     
  5. wvgca

    wvgca TrainBoard Member

    358
    171
    17
    IHC and its predecessor AHM solld european made models, low cost and low to middling quality ... hence the 'pizza cutter' flanges ...part of the package ... IHC [i think] went SOL in 2003 or so ..
     
  6. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    515
    936
    32
    I use the german TILLIG Elite code 83 that works well with the older AHM/IHC (Rivarossi and LIMA imports), due to the low profile of the sleepers spikes reproduction. Also I use fastrack assmebly fixtures to build my own turnouts using the same TILLIG rails.
    Came to use this "exotic" brand due to it being the only code 83 that allowed most of the older stock to run without touching the spikes with the flanges (by the way the oldest european models I have had to have their wheels replaced, but this did not apply even to the oldest US models from LIMA - 1977 ALCO 420).
    Do not know how easy it is to get these rails outside Germany, but probably if you use handlaid code 83 (therefore no spikes) and handlaid turnouts you may be very well able to use the older stock.

    Making turnouts with the fastracks tools is really easy (i am a sad loser with soldering, and managed to build turnouts reliably and decently quickly), so would give it a try.

    In the end you have to make a choice among replacing the wheelsets (NWSL or other sell replacement items), not running this kind of stock, handlay track, or use code 100.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2021
    Doug Gosha likes this.
  7. RGW1

    RGW1 TrainBoard Member

    439
    290
    16
    When I planned my latest layout it was only going to be a switching layout with just a couple of engines. However it grew. to a 18 x 8 around the wall layout with 2 main lines with a duck under and articulated steam running. Funny how that happens.
     
    BoxcabE50 likes this.
  8. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    515
    936
    32
    What about laying only one branchline with suitable rails? So you can still run this stock, even if just on a portion of the layout.
     

Share This Page