Best track?


MIRailFan

MIRailFan

Member
Hi all,

As a lot of you know i'm working on my first layout and while looking online at track and using Atlas's track planning program i see there's a few different type's, Code 70, Code 83, and Code 100.

So what are the difference's? Pros and Cons?
 
First off, you want to stay away from brass track, you want nickle silver. I would also suggest that you use flex track instead of sectional track this way you are not locked into a set radius curve.

I personally went with code 70 track. I liked the lower profile of the track especially having torn out an N scale layout before start into HO. The N scale track at the time (70's) was grossly over height. Code 83 would probably be the way to go. It does look a bit better than code 100 and I would probably suggest going with Peco. I used Walthers Shinohara because at the time they were the only company offering anything decent in code 70.

I have some very good model railroad friends in Missouri who have humongus layouts and they all used Peco code 83 as well as their model railroad club. They are extremely happy wiht the Peco products.
 
OK,

I saw Peco and Shinohare turnouts also while looking at track online, my guess is either one of those are better than the atlas ones?

So Code 83 nickle silver flex track either Peco or Shinohare and the mating brand turnouts.
 
In my opinion, which is just an opinion, I would have to rate Peco and Shinohara a lot higher than Atlas. I do have some Atlas code 83 flex track and some of their Customline turnouts in my hidden staging tracks and have not had any problems with them. I would have put Peco in but at the time I was unable to find any Peco supplies. Also, Shinohara and Peco do have quite a variety of turnouts that I don't think Atlas offers. Gice this post a bit of time and let others give their input. I am just one very opinionated guy.
 
Zack - You're about to get a lot of different opinions here and that's what they are, opinions. Here are a few of my observations. Code 100 is more forgiving to rolling stock due to it's height, code 83 and 70 are more prototypical. The difference between code 100 and code 83 is .017", not much to the untrained eye. Code 100 from any manufacturer tends to be less expensive than the smaller sizes. Some manufacturers have better tie and spike details than others, as well as within manufacturers offerings. For example, Atlas code 83 is more detailed than their code 100. Flex track varies from one manufacturer to another, Atlas code 100 for example has one moving rail and one fixed rail, some others have both rails as moving. Some flex track is stiffer than others and does not return to its original shape easily. Micro Engineering is an example of this stiffness. While all code 100 is basically the same in height between manufacturers, there is a slight difference with code 83. Not all manufacturers scale down their ties to match the rails.
I use all Atlas code 100 with the exception of a couple of curved turnouts which they don't make. For me, somewhere between 5% and 10% of their turnouts need some tweaking, most generally in the frog area. I have read that some other manufacturers also have some problems here. The price is right for me as it is the least expensive and with over 1200' of track and 120+ turnouts, I have saved somewhere between $2500 and $3500 to go towards rolling stock.
We have had some recent discussions regarding this:
Here -
http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/...-and-track-brands&highlight=track+differences
and here -
http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?39291-Code-100&highlight=track+differences

Read all responses carefully and then decide which is best for your situation.
Willie
 
santafewillie said:
Zack - You're about to get a lot of different opinions here and that's what they are, opinions. Here are a few of my observations. Code 100 is more forgiving to rolling stock due to it's height, code 83 and 70 are more prototypical. The difference between code 100 and code 83 is .017", not much to the untrained eye. Code 100 from any manufacturer tends to be less expensive than the smaller sizes. Some manufacturers have better tie and spike details than others, as well as within manufacturers offerings. For example, Atlas code 83 is more detailed than their code 100. Flex track varies from one manufacturer to another, Atlas code 100 for example has one moving rail and one fixed rail, some others have both rails as moving. Some flex track is stiffer than others and does not return to its original shape easily. Micro Engineering is an example of this stiffness. While all code 100 is basically the same in height between manufacturers, there is a slight difference with code 83. Not all manufacturers scale down their ties to match the rails.
I use all Atlas code 100 with the exception of a couple of curved turnouts which they don't make. For me, somewhere between 5% and 10% of their turnouts need some tweaking, most generally in the frog area. I have read that some other manufacturers also have some problems here. The price is right for me as it is the least expensive and with over 1200' of track and 120+ turnouts, I have saved somewhere between $2500 and $3500 to go towards rolling stock.
We have had some recent discussions regarding this:
Here -
http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/...-and-track-brands&highlight=track+differences
and here -
http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?39291-Code-100&highlight=track+differences

Read all responses carefully and then decide which is best for your situation.
Willie
Click to expand...
Thanks Willie for the info, I'll look at those topics and go from there.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
Generally, the companies introduced the smaller codes of rail to sell them to 'stickler's-for-detail. While many/most in the hobby are happy with Code 100, including its wide availability, and with simple layouts that aren't very good at depicting real scenes, many in the hobby ARE sticklers, rivet counters, or whatever other name you might wish to use because they actually do want to work at replicating a scene in scale and having it look convincing. Code 100 rail is equivalent to 165 lb/yard rail, a weight of rail that nobody has ever used in railroading except maybe to support a heavy overhead crane in a shop that also had to support 50 or more tons of boiler and firebox, or cylinder saddles, etc. Most Class 1 rail in N. America is in the 130 lb/yd weight, with much of it below 110 lb/yd elsewhere. For those of us who enjoy faithfully replicating a real scene on a railway, Code 100 rail is simply too large, and really stands out in a photograph of a layout scene. With enough of us clamouring for more realistic looking rails, the companies began to import the codes now available.

Code 100 is easier to handle, stands up to rougher handling than the lighter codes, and is both cheaper and more widely available. You never have problems with even the older pizza-cutter flanges bottoming out on spikehead details in Code 100. Many prefer to use it inside tunnels or in and out of hidden staging because it is foolproof when laid well.

To directly answer your original question, the 'best' track is the stuff that meets your needs. What are your needs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Selector said:
Generally, the companies introduced the smaller codes of rail to sell them to 'stickler's-for-detail. While many/most in the hobby are happy with Code 100, including its wide availability, and with simple layouts that aren't very good at depicting real scenes, many in the hobby ARE sticklers, rivet counters, or whatever other name you might wish to use because they actually do want to work at replicating a scene in scale and having it look convincing. Code 100 rail is equivalent to 165 lb/yard rail, a weight of rail that nobody has ever used in railroading except maybe to support a heavy overhead crane in a shop that also had to support 50 or more tons of boiler and firebox, or cylinder saddles, etc. Most Class 1 rail in N. America is in the 130 lb/yd weight, with much of it below 110 lb/yd elsewhere. For those of us who enjoy faithfully replicating a real scene on a railway, Code 100 rail is simply too large, and really stands out in a photograph of a layout scene. With enough of us clamouring for more realistic looking rails, the companies began to import the codes now available.

Code 100 is easier to handle, stands up to rougher handling than the lighter codes, and is both cheaper and more widely available. You never have problems with even the older pizza-cutter flanges bottoming out on spikehead details in Code 100. Many prefer to use it inside tunnels or in and out of hidden staging because it is foolproof when laid well.

To directly answer your original question, the 'best' track is the stuff that meets your needs. What are your needs?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info Selector.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
About the only thing I can add here is the radius of fixed curved track.
I dislike flex track.
I do not use it anywhere.

I use Fast tracks to make my track.
This is not a good way to go.
Way too expensive.

Fast Tracks turnouts are some of the best.
The problem here is the expense and you have to make them yourself.

As far as I can see, about all track will work. As selector, what to you need or want from your layout?
 
I have used Atlas Code 100 through out my layout with mostly Atlas Code 100 custom line turnouts #6s and #4s. As far as Code 100's looks, Code 83 is nicer; however, if you paint the rail and ties a color like Roof Brown it really camouflages the fact that the rails are code 100. Atlas Code 100 turnouts are a buck cheaper than Code 83 and Code 100 flex is less expensive than Code 83. I have found that ModelTrainStuff has about as good of prices as anyone. Their website is easy to shop at and easy to compare prices. Micro Engineering, Peco, Bachmann, Shinohara and Walthers (Shinohara) all make track and you can look at them also. However, I think Atlas is the cheapest. It looks good enough for my purposes, especially after painting and as far as quality is concerned, maybe it is in the middle somewhere. I don't necessarily go for cheapest; but, I do like to save a little where I can. Also, I'm not a stickler; or, Rivet Counter and I think some of that is going a little "NUTS"! I like to keep in mind that I'm in this for the fun! I think Montanan advised going with Nickel/Silver and leave brass on the shelf, if you even see it offered anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G'day , I use Atlas Code 100 Flex track..Also use Atlas turnouts ...Peco is also great..Switch motors though go Peco ... I agree with Montanan also...Go Flex track rather than sectional track UNLESS you are likely to need to shift or significantly modify or change your layout often .. If sectional track is chosen go with Bachmann EZY Track. You can't go wrong..First of all their nickel silver track is really reliable , the silver alloy isn't terrible either.. If you're unsure , the higher grade nickel silver has grey roadbed and the silver alloy has black roadbed.. The other thing good about Bachmann is a variety of radius curves , 18 " , 22" , 26 " and 33" and they also make gap filler track sections too.. If you are nervous about soldering Flex track , not that it's very difficult , Bachmann track requires no soldering..This is the best thing about our hobby , it caters for everyone...Cheers Rod..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not possible to provide easements with sectional track. I think easements do add to obtaining realistic looking track work. Knowing how-learning how to solder is going to be a necessity, so if you don't know how, read-up and learn how. As Rodney states above, it isn't difficult. There are more things that will need soldering at some point in this hobby; so, it is best to have that skill in your pocket. As far as the ratio of Nickel to silver in the rail is concerned, I doubt there is a noticeable difference between the two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldering is a very good way to join track BUTT it is not "essential"! It CAN be done without soldering if you are not comfortable or do not know how (like me). I crimp the metal joiners to the rails and have good power flow throughout the 500 feet of code 100 mostly Atlas track I have down now. I went with Atlas because of the price and after sanding a few frogs down the turnouts work flawlessly. I own a solder gun but it has never been used, eventually I'll do that but for now crimping has been more than adequate.

I'm such a "Shleprock" I'd melt the ties and burn a hole in the dang table if I tried soldering right now!
 
In a nut shell, it's going to be durability/lower cost vs. finer scale appearance and a bit more expensive.

HO Code 100: Bigger than most mainline rail when scaled down; add to that the cast on detail like spikes, tie plates etc. more crude - the spikes look like big blobs.

Pro - it can take more abuse before breaking or getting damaged, and it usually costs less.
Con - appearance is more crude (you can hide it with weathering and ballasting)

HO Code 83 & 70: Finer and closer to scale for mainline and siding track.

Pro - looks much closer to the real thing when scaled down - which to many is important. It also makes your trains look a bit more massive in relation, and thus more realistic.

Con - more fragile due to fine details and costs more.


What I do is use code 100 for durability and cost savings in my storage/staging yards where appearance is not a big deal. I use finder code 83 and 70 on the mainline and yards etc.


New Guy: I am not the most skilled with a soldering iron but I find I can generally avoid melting ties by:

1) clipping on heat sinks on both sides of the joint I am soldering - that's major.
2) using a clean and fluxed soldering tip
3) making sure the joint I am about to solder is fairly clean of corrosion, carbon etc, and then brush flux on it (such as Tix brand flux).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NP2626 said:
It is not possible to provide easements with sectional track.
Click to expand...

Allow me for a moment to "play the devils advocate" and say I don't think that is entirely true; back in my N-scale days I used to insert a broad curve section at the beginning of the curve and use sharper radius sectional track for most of the curve and then insert another large radius curve at the end before the straight section. It was a crude method of creating easements using sectional track - so it is possible so if someone is adamant or afraid to use flex track, it's worth considering.

Personally, I decided years ago to learn to use flex track after reading some books and buying John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" and I developed a fairly simple way of laying easements based on John's diagrams and tables and after that it was full steam ahead.

I think easements do add to obtaining realistic looking track work.
Click to expand...

For sure, and also give trains a more realistic appearance when running by reducing the "coefficient of lurch" as J.Armstrong call it.

As for soldering, yes, its really a necessary skill for various tasks when building a layout and not that hard to learn. That said, after I had some serious expansion and contraction issues in a garage layout, I like to leave many of my joints free of solder so they can "float" and "breath" - I compensate for that by adding wire feeders frequently to avoid dead spots.
 
riogrande said:
Allow me for a moment to "play the devils advocate" and say I don't think that is entirely true; back in my N-scale days I used to insert a broad curve section at the beginning of the curve and use sharper radius sectional track for most of the curve and then insert another large radius curve at the end before the straight section. It was a crude method of creating easements using sectional track - so it is possible so if someone is adamant or afraid to use flex track, it's worth considering.
Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative; however, technically, what you describe isn't really an easement. The full description of what we are talking about is "Spiral Easement". It is my guess that you know this and what you describe maybe looks like an easement. However, the train still goes from straight track directly into a curve. True Spiral Easements gently goes from straight into a curve with ever decreasing curvature until the desired curve radius is achieved. Then on the other end it goes from the desired radius into ever increasing radius until straight track is again reached.

All of this is far easier to achieve then it is to describe. My problem is understanding why anyone would be adamant against; or, afraid of using flex track. But, then again, we are talking about a hobby that at least I am involved to have fun with! It is certainly anyone's prerogative to dislike; or, chose not to use flex track.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless I missed it -- and I AM getting old -- no one in this thread has actually explained where the "code" numbers come from.

The number is simply the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch.

Thus Code 100 track has rails that are 100 thousandths of an inch tall = 0.100 inch.
Code 83 rails are 83 thousandths of an in tall = 0.083 inch.
Code 55 = 0.055 inch.

As others have explained, your choice depends on factors such as realism vs. reliability vs. ease of use.

- Jeff
 
vs. cost.

I use Atlas code 83 (#500) flex track and a mix of Atlas Custom Line and hand made (FastTrack fixture) turnouts. If cost were no object, I'd use Micro Engineering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top