Atlas Code 100 or 83


M

Mike_Arnold

Newbie Modeler
A quick question.

I'm getting ready to dive headfirst into layout planning and I guess my question is should I settle with Code 100 or 83?

I've heard Code 100 is less realistic than Code 83.

What do you recommend?

Thanks,
Mike
 
Hey Mike, I haven't worked with either of them (yet) but code 83's rail has a lower profile and brown ties, thus making it more realistic. Whereas code 100's rail is "taller" and has black ties. I hope that helps.
 
Atlas Code 100 just looks too big since it is robust that is why it is unrealistic. So, I recommend you use Code 83 since it is easy to work with – with realistic height.
 
You can paint & ballast code 100 so it'll look pretty good...

But this code 83 I'm using now looks good already, before paimting & ballasting! I can't wait to see what it'll look like finished!

So if you haven't bought any track yet, go with the code 83...
But if you happen to have a bunch of code 100 already, don't sweat it...it'll be fine!
 
Thanks for the quick responses guys. I haven't bought any track yet, so I will plan around with code 83 and see where I get!

Best regards,
Mike
 
One thing to consider is if you have a lot of old rolling stock with older wheels. The deep flange kind. Through the frog points of code 83, they might rock a lot or even jump off. If you have change to new metal wheel sets, please disregard this advice. ;)
 
Ron I did hear about this. And most of my rolling stock do have metal wheels but some have plastic still. How would I go about finding the right size wheels for my rolling stock? Because in the past I have thought that they were conventional sizes, but I was wrong.

Best regards,
Mike
 
Mike_Arnold said:
How would I go about finding the right size wheels for my rolling stock?

Best regards,
Mike
Click to expand...

I think I can answer your question. If you are going to run models of cars that have a load capacity of 70 tons or more, or passenger cars, you need 36" wheels. Cars below 70 tons generally rode on 33" wheels.

Don't ask me about container cars. I never can remember if its 28" on the ends with 36" in the middle, or 36" on the ends and 28" in the middle.:confused:

Guess that's why I don't model modern.:rolleyes:
 
Most of my cars(Athearn BB) and locos (p2k,Athearn,Bachmann)have standard flanges and will run on code 83 just fine. However some companies like IHC have locos with deep flanges. some do not like code 83 and simply will not run on track lower than code 83.

I agree code 83 looks alot better and if I was to start a new layout 83 would be my choice simply from a detail stand point
 
I've used C100 for many years and was satisfied with it until I started my latest layout with C83. The C83 is just as easy to work with as the C100 and looks much more realistic IMO. Somebody said the C100 equates to rails that would be 12 inches high or something - pretty oversized.

Many people though use C100 for mainlines and C83 for sidings and spurs since the 1:1 railroads typically use lighter rail off the mains. You might want to consider it.

RE: flanges, I have several 10 year old Athearn engines and a couple do jump when going over the C83 turnout frogs. I've not looked into the cause yet - flanges or frogs - since nothing is derailing.
 
Beachbum said:
I've used C100 for many years and was satisfied with it until I started my latest layout with C83. The C83 is just as easy to work with as the C100 and looks much more realistic IMO. Somebody said the C100 equates to rails that would be 12 inches high or something - pretty oversized.

Many people though use C100 for mainlines and C83 for sidings and spurs since the 1:1 railroads typically use lighter rail off the mains. You might want to consider it.

RE: flanges, I have several 10 year old Athearn engines and a couple do jump when going over the C83 turnout frogs. I've not looked into the cause yet - flanges or frogs - since nothing is derailing.
Click to expand...

The "flange" issue is not unique to Atlas C83 frogs, I noticed the same "problem" with C83 Kato Uni-track also. I also notice this effect on some of my newest equipment, as well as the 1960s stuff bought before the RP25 cwheel standards were adopted. I believe the problem is with the frog, in both cases.

I used Atlas C83 on my previous layout, and seriously considered going back to C100 for the current one, before trying Kato's track on my current smaller layout. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages, but if I build another layout, I will probably go back to a mix of Peco and Atlas C83.
 
lmackattack said:
...However some companies like IHC have locos with deep flanges. some do not like code 83 and simply will not run on track lower than code 83....
Click to expand...

Quite a few years ago, I had an HO switching layoutthat was built using mostly Atlas code 100 flex track...
This guy at my LHS was bragging about how he had done his whole layout with Shinohara code 70 track...
Well, I bought a piece of the code 70, & used it to make a spur to one of my factories...it looked great, & worked fine...until I ran my IHC mogul on it...the flanges hit the molded plastic spikes on the code 70 track...

I'm using Atlas code 83 on the current layout, & yes, I still have that old mogul, & it does fine on the code 83 track & turnouts...
 
Be advised that the trend is more towards Code 83, so you can buy and use Atlas, but if you want to have curved turnouts or more realistic bridge track, inspection pits, etc., then you'll be able to drop in another manufacturer's Code 83 product better than if you started with Code 100.

I ran with Code 100 because when I started buying track and tinkering on my dining room table, I went with what I knew. It's good track, but there's not that much available for it compared to Code 83.

Whichever you get, at least upgrade your wheelsets to RP25 or so metal. Your cars will roll better, the track will stay cleaner, and all the chicks dig metal wheelsets!
 
I know the trend is toward Code 83, and there is nothing wrong with that! I have HO equipment dating back 50 years! None of it, however is IHC, or if I have a car or two, the wheelsets were long-since replace with RP25 standard.

However...I am in the process of building my latest (and probably last) pike in a 14 x 13' 7" room built for the purpose. Since I also have turnouts and even some track that goes back to my teenage years (some of the flex track even have fiber ties!!!), I'm sticking with Code 100.

I recently bought a bunch of Atlas Snap Track Turnouts in Code 100, and much to my disappoinment they seem to have a problem with the points gaging correctly in the diverging (curved) position! I checked them with an NMRA steel gage, and they are too tight about half-way through the point. This can be corrected by filing a bit more of the flange at the base of the point where it touches the stock rail, and by bending it carefully. But for a product intended for the beginner, I find it disappointing, especially since I have 50-some year old brass and nickel silver turnouts that still work just fine. I've used Shinohara and PECO turnouts instead in many places, reserving the Atlas for places where the underlying benchwork simply doesn't allow for under-the-table mounting of switch machines, or where the curvature fits better.

I don't know if Atlas Code 83 turnouts are suffering from the same problem or not.
 
Snap Switches are cheap for a reason. The quality control is poor and most are used for seasonal trainset type layouts. Derailments are so common on those kinds of layouts that having derailments on the switches just seems normal. As you say, they can be made to work, but I would never use a Snap Switch on a serious layout. Unless you run nothing but short wheelbase engines and short freight cars, you'll have problems with derailments even if the switches are perfect. To my regret, I used a couple of Snap Switches in my yard to save space. Those tracks are relegated to RIP track use now. The Atlas Customline code 83 #4 switches are better made and the diverging route is not such a sharp curve.
 
here is one for you.

down at the club the mainlines were layed with code 83 and sidings were code 70? after 20 years of use some parts of the layout, mostly grades, were worn past the rail heads. some places were near code 50. We have been in the process of replacing all of the 10 scale miles of the main with code 100. It was thought that we will louse detail but gain use as we run 7 days a week and we just got another 20 year lease!

and I agree the Atlas snap switches are not that great but does save the bank. After 3 layouts and 3 times using atlas I swear I will never use them again. to much trouble and mantance with them. I have 2 Peco switches and never have issues with them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UP2CSX said:
Snap Switches are cheap for a reason. The quality control is poor and most are used for seasonal trainset type layouts. Derailments are so common on those kinds of layouts that having derailments on the switches just seems normal. As you say, they can be made to work, but I would never use a Snap Switch on a serious layout. Unless you run nothing but short wheelbase engines and short freight cars, you'll have problems with derailments even if the switches are perfect. To my regret, I used a couple of Snap Switches in my yard to save space. Those tracks are relegated to RIP track use now. The Atlas Customline code 83 #4 switches are better made and the diverging route is not such a sharp curve.
Click to expand...

So should I plan with those instead of snap switches?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top