CODE 83 RAIL

[NW Modeling List]

Hi Ed,

I have been using code 83 for over 25 years, and never had a problem except
when a friend brought his model of a TVG that he bought in France over to
run on my layout.  It ran fine on the code 83 until it got to a switch going
200 MPH.  The entire train leaped into the air, but came back down on the
track without derailing.  I happen to like the looks of the code 83 track in
relation to the rolling stock, and indeed, it is a more accurate
representation of the rail in use on most mainlines.  Code 100 rail is not
only a little tall, but also too wide to be a good scale model of real
track.  Also, the code 100 track I have seen doesn¹t have as realistic ties
as code 83.  Personally, I think Atlas code 83 is the easiest to work with
because one of the rails slides in the ties and thus it is easier to form
curves; however, the ties are deeper than others so you would have to use
more ballast if you want it to come up to the tops of the ties.  Walthers
(Shinohara) and Micro Engineering have beautiful track but its harder to
work with when forming curves.  Since the ties are shallower, it takes less
ballast to come up to the tops of the ties.  I like the new Peco switches,
but have not used any of their flex track.

Incidentally, most equipment will work on code 83, and code 70.  In fact, I
only have one car that must be over 25 years old that won¹t run on code 55
track.  These smaller rail section tracks have very fine spikes that don¹t
stick out beyond the rail head.

Since you are starting out from scratch, you have the advantage of choosing
one kind and using it consistantly.  I would base my decision on how well
you like the switches and then use flex track by the same manufacturer.

Bob Folsom
N&W Clemson Division


On 1/30/07 9:10 AM, "NW Modeling List" <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org> wrote:


> As the big day approaches to start laying track, any thoughts on the best

> size?  Hopefully folks with more experience can advise if you've had good

> results with code 83 (or smaller???) from an operability, construction, cost

> and appearance standpoint?  Any feelings on brand names that have worked well

> for you?  At the cost of some of those #8 turnouts I sure don't want to make a

> mistake!  (Even worse to have a J fall 4 feet to the ground).

>  

> Thanks!!

>  

> Ed Svitil

> 

> 

> ________________________________________

> NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org

> To change your subscription go to

> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/attachments/20070130/757d5745/attachment.html