After the holidays I will be buying some track and the dilemma is.....which size? Code 83 is more realistic compared with the prototype......or is it? Code 100 gives the wheel flanges just a tad more room.....depending on the type of trucks, .......or does it? I'm aware that the railroads use different size rails.......heavier for mainline, lighter for sidings, etc. so both code 83 and code 100 could be correct as far as scale goes. Am I on the "right track"? (Sorry about that!)
I read somewhere that code 83 will soon be the respected norm, but I'm not sure that will ever happen. I have very limited experience but would think that code 100 would be easier to ballast if you are newer to the hobby. I don't know if this is really the case or not though.
Code 83 represents heavy duty 120-130 lb mainline. All the locos and cars made today will work fine with it. Code 100 rail is more like 160 lb rail. Not evan Pensy or the Virginin used rail this big. Virginin did come close though . There isnt a whole lot of visual difference between the two, Use what you can get and looks best to you. For a real difference try code 70 on the sidings and branches. This is close to 100 lb rail and was used extensivly on most railroads up to WW2...HTH........Mike
I use both code 83 and code 70 and have no problems with wheel flanges. If the wheels meet NMRA standards you should have no problems either. The only time I had problems was when I tried to run some AHM passenger cars straight out of the box a long time ago. They had real deep flanges. As to the comment about ballast being easier with code 100, why? The ballast shouldn't be any higher than the top of the ties. If the flanges don't hit the ties then they won't hit the ballast. If you are talking about installing the ballast, then again it shouldn't make any difference.
The flex track and sectional track made today and turnouts as well, that are molded in place with plastic ties, will clear the extra long flanges of Bachmann and Rivarossi wheels even if you use a few spikes to secure rails in places, like turntable stall tracks, and tressles. What you guys have begun to call "track spikes" are actually flat head circircular nails or wire brads, that are driven into holes in the center of the plastic molded track to mount it with. Two to a section. Model rail "spikes" are steel square shank off-set head real miniture spikes about 3/16" long for HO and 1/4" long for O scale. Before molded ties, we had to actually put a spike on both sides of each rail with a track gauge. You start the spike with needle nose pliers, then tap it into place with a fine point nail-set punch and small tack hammer. The off-set head had to be correctly set to lap over the rail foot to hold the rail down onto each tie, while the shank maintained alignment. Four spikes were required every one and a half to two inches on True-Scale wood road bed, or every inch on flat board bed or Homosote. (I have never seen a piece of Homosote down here in Texas.) Today you put two track nails in to hold each 9" piece of today's track. I still have a one pound box of real HO spikes I am using out of to secure my track in places like the alignment around the turntable stall tracks, and turnouts. We got to where we could lay maybe 8 to 12 feet of track a day, where today you can lay the whole track plan in a day. I am going to experiment with glueing track again, now that we have some better glues too. The long flange trains were made for and considered toys by the manufacturer, so they came up with the molded track to allow the long flange so the kiddies didn't derail trains at curves when they wanted to "see how fast it will go". Today, we are getting more scale sized flanges (like RP-25) BECAUSE of the molded track. That makes it possible to run RP-25 flanges on code 70 and code 80 rails. But the older long flange wheels will bump over any real spikes you may have to use, and even on molded code 55 rails sometimes, see? Ohio Iron & Foundry shows to have made 175 pound per yard rail, which would be close to the code 100.
I felt code 100 would be a little more forgiving to bad ballast work because the wheels wouldn't be so sensitive to ballast that was above the top of the ties. You know, more rail there to keep the wheels inline.
Speaking of glueing track, what is a good type to use, and where do you put it, just on ever tie? I have a ton of Elmers wood glue left over from my last layout, will it work. The stuff is great, holds fast, but when pulled off, does not break plastic. Thanks as always.
I've used elmers before. Just spread it with your finger so its not too thick. Go ahead, pull my finger eek: .Mike [ 27 December 2001: Message edited by: Mike C ]
<font color="336633">I use Peco code 75 track for everything apart from a couple of industrial tracks which are code 55.</font>
The question "What is realistic" depends on what you are modeling, and what era. Code 100 would be the best bet for a modern mainline. The further back in time you go, generally speaking, the smaller the rail you will want to use. If you are not too picky, Code 83 is a good compromise. There is a lot of great looking prefab track in that size.
Hi Pete, I'm modeling the 50's.......as best as I can. That era allows me to use all my favorite locomotives.......Hudsons and Pacifics in steam and F7's, E6's, C-liners in diesel. The Code 83 seems to be the best compromise. Happy New Year!
Use code 83 for modern mainlines, code 55 for yard/sidings. Railroads from the past used smaller rail so maybe use code 55 for steam era. I wouldn't use code 100 even if certain railroads used large rail that would come close to it because the tie size and spacing of code 100 track is much oversized than the prototypes use, so the slighty smaller rail is less noticable than the ties.
