Bachmann Online Forum

Can someone tell me the physical difference between code 100 and code 83 track?  Further, could you give me a quick rundown of why someone might use one over the other?

Thanks

Code 100  rails are .100" high with black ties. Code 83 is .083" high with brown ties. I'm only familiar with Bachmann and Atlas, other brands may look different.

Most "fine scale modelers" prefer the Code 83 for a more prototypical appearance, and the ties are closer to scale in size and spacing.  Some modelers use both, 100 on the main lines carrying heavier freight, and 83 for sidings or yards.   Transition joiners are available to make the different rail heights match up. 

I've never seen brown ties on full scale tracks, at least not up here.  New ones are black and fade into a dirty gray.  I like the Code 100 as it is a bit sturdier. 

Bachmann EZ track is code 100 and is compatible with other brands of 100 track.
It's your choice.

Yampa Bob

Once upon a time I spied an E-7 pic'ed on a stretch of code 83, and from then on, said "Hasta Luigi" to code 100.  Today, about the only function code 100 has is to look really oversized on any layout.  About the only place I will use it is in a staging yard, and at that, not visible; and the only reason is that I have a bunch of it left over from my last "layout".

Today, with the flanges on drivers being more to scale-not to mention the profile wheelsets I am slapping on everything I have, about the highest rail I use IS code 83.  I will not use it in yards, sidings, etc; as it looks a bit silly on what is supposed to be light non-mainline rail.

I don't mean to sound like a rail-snob; I just think that better looking stuff than code 100 is available.  I have a sneaking hunch that it acts better in operations, too.

Rich

An HO scale inch is .0115” actual measurement.

Code 100 is 8.7” in HO scale

Code 83 is 7.2”

Code 70 is 6”

Code 55 is 4.7”

Code 40 is 3.5”

Hope this helps.

Hi Rich
You don't mean to be a rail snob, you are a rail snob. LOL.  But that's ok, new modelers need to know all the pros and cons. 

I just checked  Atlas and Bachmann Code 100 track with a very precise digital caliper, they are both .100" high.  I don't know about the other brands or codes.

Yampa Bob

I use Code 83 exclusively. Most of the experts seem to recommend it. When all is said and done, it's your railroad. You run what you want.

 I don't know about the other brands or codes.

HI Bob;

Yeah...They are because they probably buy the rail from the same jobber.  Wouldn't be the first time it ever happened.

Signed;
Richie the rail snob...

PS:  Code 83 is probably gaining more popularity as more modellers move through this hobby.

Price for code 83 seems to be coming down.  That does not mean I'm going to rip up all the laid code 100 and convert to code 83 for main and code 70 for branch and sidings.  Once track has been painted and ballasted, it's hard to tell them apart.
Gene

Thank you, all.

There must be some benefit, or at least perceived benefit to having higher track?  Is it possible that some trains need higher clearance?

yes it is.  older trains had larger wheel flanges and therefore needed higher rails. I also have some Marklin cars that could not be used on code 83 track because of the large flanges.  It was thought that this would solve derailment problems. Today most trains have flanges that are to scale and don't need high rails. Buy a pack of each and see what you like better. the cost is the same for each.  If you don't have any old trains then you can choose ether one.

Okay, so if I am starting from jump street there is no particular value in the code 100.  Got it.

Atlas must have different statistics, as they just redesigned  all their Code 100 turnouts.  Before I made the choice, I called them and was told 100 is actually growing in popularity.  I know one hobby shop that doesn't even carry the 83.  Could be because he got stuck with a truckload of 100?  The Atlas catalog says "Code 83 is the choice of discerning modelers" which Webster defines as " Insightful, perceptive."   

There will never be a clear "winner" in the code debate but it makes for fun reading.

Over the years we picked up hundreds of discarded ties left by UP along the tracks through our ranch, to build corrals.  They were all black.  Maybe Code 83 has brown ties so when a guy paints the rails rusty brown it doesn't matter if it slops onto the ties.

Bob

Most serious modelers today use Code 83 rail for main line track because it is closer is scale size to prototype rail used in most cases.  Code 100 was the de facto standard in HO from at least the 1940's until the 1970's, and the NMRA track standards are based on its use.  In the 1960's Code 70 rail was developed primarily for narrow gauge track.  Code 83 came in the 1980's, along with code 55. 

The intent is more closely model the rail weights used by the prototype.  Real rail is measured in pounds per yard.  Most main line track today uses rail of about 136 lb., which is about what code 83 represents.  Code 70 rail represents rail of about 100 lb., which is used on secondary tracks, spurs, yards, etc.  Code 100 rail represents 156 lb. rail, which was only used by the Pennsylvania RR back in steam days on their most heavily-used main line tracks. 

As for tie color, freshly-creosoted ties look almost black.  However, even after a relatively short time, they begin fading to a dark brown, then finally to a browish-grey.  Unless you are modeling a railroad that has just laid completely new track with new ties, the black color is really not correct.  The brown ties, especially under typical basement lighting, have a much better visual appearance, especially when ballasted. 

Serious modelers will also paint the sides of the rail to further make it more prototypical in appearance.  Floquil, for one, make a Rail Brown paint just for this purpose.  Some use a small paint brush; others will use an airbrush.  In any event, if you paint your rails make sure to clean the top surfaces VERY well before running anything. 

 I use Code 83 and people say it is realistic.

I keep seeing references to "expert", "serious", "knowledgeable", "professional", etc. 

It seems today that when someone has an opinion, they have to call up a great army of third parties to support their preferences.  Why can't people just state their preferences and let others decide for themselves.   That's the problem with the world today, everyone thinks their way should be the only way.  Last I heard this is still a free country.

I am extremely serious about my modest railroad, very knowledgeable, but will never call myself an  "expert" because things are constantly changing. 

If someone says "I prefer Code 83 because I like the way it looks",  that's fine, that doesn't degrade or belittle my preferences.  Notice I used terms like "fine scale modelers" and "discerning modelers", "insightful" and "perceptive".   In other words I respect other's choices and opinions.  But opinions are like (rear ends), everyone has one.

This hobby is supposed to be fun.  I thoroughly enjoy my layout, even if it is "substandard" and  not "correct". 

Yampa Bob

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...)

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.......

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

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.

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

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

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

EBTBob,

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

Robin

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.

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

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.....  ;D

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

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

An excelent reason not to drink in the first place.

Sheldon

Sheldon
That should be excellent.
Don :-[

Grumpy;
I played out in bands for twenty five years, and not ONCE did the ugly girls ever look good any time.
Rich

While code 83 generally looks better than code 100, if code 100 is properly painted and ballasted, can look very good.  Particularly true if you are modeling a heavy duty railroad like the UP, PRR or N&W.  I was invited to see a very large impressive prototypically exact N&W layout in northern Maryland last year and it looks absolutely fantastic.  Everyone was surprised to find out it was all code 100. 

Where the smaller rail really shines is if you are taking photographs.  Code 100 looks really large and out of place in photos.  My current layout is all code 70 and code 55 and I am really pleased with it. -  Nevin 

I have no gripe with code 100 track but with the small locos I have (bachmann 10 wheelers & a new Roundhouse old time consolidation) code 100 reminds me of my old O27 Lionel trainset.  If code 70 flextrack was priced any where near the cost of Atlas I'd probably use that.  I like the way EZ track couples together, & it's very sturdy. That said, the roadbed is way to high for a turn of the century RR.  As a temporary measure (till I begin my permanent pike) Atlas Tru track gets me by.  My two cents.

Yampa Bob.....I think you were the one talking about experts.  I have two definitations for expert:  #1 An expert is someone who learns more & more about less & less til he knows absolutely everthing there is to know about nothing.  #2 An ex is a has been & a spert is a drip under pressure.  lol

Bob do you live near CO 318? Thats the ownly part of the state (west of Denver) I've never been to.








b

 I know where 318 is, takes off from Maybell....Check my thread  "yampa valley railroad"....in this section.   Post a reply if you like...

My layout is very basic but it suits me just fine and I have a lot of fun with it.   

Bob

Just looked out the window to check the color of the ties .  I live on railroad street and the UP  redid  the ties & reballasted the track  , CNW freight track to Belvidere  , last Summer .  New Ties were creosote Black  initially, but have faded to various shades of brown depending on age & exposure. The old ties removed were  darker where not exposed to light on their sides and bottoms. The rails were various shades of rust on their unused surfaces.  As to  Rail Code Sizes what does it really matter ?  If it works it's good enough .

Jhanecker2 wrote: -

"As to  Rail Code Sizes what does it really matter ? "

To me?  A lot.

I want somewhat realistic track, so for my 1959 GER I use code 70 rail, about 100lb rail in real life which is just fine for a 1959 secondary branch line system, which is what my GER is all about.

Besides, you can always tell code 100.  It's big, it's ugly no matter how you paint it.  :)

Well, there's the problem.  You like code 83 and that's fine, I have no problem with your desire for "realism".  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Would you be welcome in my home if you called my track ugly?  Would it not be better to say code 100 is not as realistic, I can accept that.

People can disagree without being derogatory.

Bob

Awright, youse guys;
You got too much time on your hands?  This is a very old and just as silly argument!  If Joe Blow wants code 100 on his layout, so what?  It ain't coming out of your pocket!  I use 83!  So what?  I like it, and that is all that I give a hoot about.  I don't care who uses that or 100, or any other size. 
The both of you have better things to contribute here than that kind of garbage!  Dig into your minds and help someone who needs it; you are both quite capable!

Actually Bob, I don't use code 83.  I use code 70 and a little code 55.

And saying that code 100 is "big and ugly no matter how you paint it" is only being derogatory to code 100 rail, which last time I looked was an inanimate object.

There was also a smiley on the end of the sentence indictating that  what was said was said, at least partially, in jest.

Code 100 rail has, for me at least, spoilt the look of many a fine looking model railroad featured in the magazines.  There's no need for code 100 rail, in HO at least.   It should be discontinued by every manufacturer.  It doesn't work any better than the smaller codes, it's not easier to install, it's more difficult to cut, and it looks what it is.  A sturdy track, designed for use in train sets.

I still stand by my personal opinion that code 100 rail is big and ugly.  It's a personal opinion Just like all sound systems sound like tinney 1960s transistor radios.  It's personal.

You are free to disagree, you are free to use code 100 rail,  but that is my personal opinion.

As the person that started this thread I would just like to point out that my original questions have been answered in full.

That is all.

Parker

If you use code 83 or 70 on your home layout you begin to see how code 100 rail seems to be oversize.

You can paint it and bury it with a lot of ballast to disguise it.

I have no problem using code 100 rail.

It's a matter of preference - digustibus non disputandum est.

I can definitely address one issue.  Atlas just upgraded all their Code l00 turnouts.  I hate to disappoint anyone, but Code 100 is here to stay. 

Asking that all factories discontinue something I don't like is akin to asking Ford to quit making trucks because at the moment I drive Dodge.

Bob

Oh no. this started out as an intelligent question about rail heights, now I see latin phrases bandied about...this bodes an ill wind... let us pray no one pulls Anzio Annie out of her polystyrene tunnel's lair.... I for one shall withdraw to the nuetrality of my basement sanctuary..... where my John Bull has just convinced me to back date the layout to an even earlier 'pre bellum' time..... keeping the 700 feet of code 100 in place of course.... pax dudes... 

I have not seen it posted but what does the effect on temperature and expansion and contraction to the rails. does the smaller rail in code 83 act better or worse then code 100 track?  I had an issue with flex track (c100) warping very sharply. I could not even run a single freight car over it w/o replacing it.

How about some more details with your problem with flex track.  Two questions:
What's your roadbase/ssubroadbase?
Who is the track attached to the base?
Gene

Tony - the Latin translates to "when it comes to taste there is no disputing" meaning that if you like code 100 rail then use it. The new Bachmann EZ track makes laying track a dream. I started with Atlas code 100 fiber tie flex track. It didn't look all that real and the ties were affect by humidity.

I personally used to like handlaying track - I found it theraputic.

Well the sub roadbed is homesote (*) with the track nailed to it, no glue used.
This was a family friends layout and he asked for help  but it's beyond me that the flex track keeps flexing. I have some flex track on my personal layout and for 6 years not never had a problem on it.

Clear block, just like the 12 inch to the foot stuff, if temp changes are extreme, you need gaps in the rail, even if only the places that bind up, doesn't take much, but if it is all glued down, etc etc, it won't be easy, a saw blade on a dremel is great, but the rail joiners... might be a choir... yes Woody, I think of Nevil Chamberlain and GB 1 when people use latin in hostile orations...this was going off on a 'degree style tangent'? ... My friend's dad hand laid track before they invented flex track. On routered out curved and straight pine boards? He had a theory-" don't bother with scenery, it distracts people from the trains!" And my layout is built along the same idea, except for the buildings or scenes I want to draw attention to, simple dark scenery, plain track, pay attention to the trains... and alot of my collection is old AHM, or British, and I 'need' the code 100, 'cause I am not going to replace millions of wheels... and my layout isn't 100% North American anyway, so it suits me.... I had no problem with fiber tie brass, my old stuff is still in 'secondary' use, and I wish I had more.... I spend just as much time cleaning NS....