Code 83 or 100

Discussion in 'HO Scale Model Trains' started by Stan Bolsenga, Mar 19, 2007.

  1. Stan Bolsenga

    Stan Bolsenga New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    I forgot. Is HO gage Code 100 the "old style" and code 83 the newer, more realistic track?
  2. Russ Bellinis

    Russ Bellinis Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,707
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "code" tells how big the rail is. Code 100 is the older style. It is oversize for most scale operations, but may be necessary if you have some of the older European equipment like early Rivarossi. Code 83 is closer to the correct size for class 1 mainline track. If you want realistic sizes for industrial sidings, you need to go down to code 70 or even code 55.
  3. Stan Bolsenga

    Stan Bolsenga New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks

    Thanks for the quick reply.
  4. Spawn of Chaos

    Spawn of Chaos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2007
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hah. Rivarossi, eh? Early Rivarossi? Sounds like my Big Boy...I think it has RP-18 flanges or something...
  5. Triplex

    Triplex Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    0
    And those are for the modern era. Most old-time modellers probably don't use correct-size rail - Code 40 would be appropriate for a 19th-century mainline.
  6. zedob

    zedob Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you ever try to work with Code 40 flextack? I had some HOn3 that Railcraft(?) made years ago and it was frustrating. It's so fragile and hard to curve smoothly that I gave up on it. Looked good, but I'm not into surgical cow milking. I seem to recall that some loco flanges hit the tiny spike heads. Although I model early 1900s, I'm using code 70 for my mainline and 55 for sidings and branchline.
  7. shaygetz

    shaygetz Active Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    3,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use C100 so that I can run all equipment manufactured at all times in the hobby, some of the ones I own are 40-50 years old. Jeuof, Fleischmann and Rivarossi are my biggest offenders with some serious "pizza cutter" flanges. C100 is also prototype for some stretches of 135 pound rail used on the old Pennsylvania RR, close enough to where and when I model for me.
  8. Triplex

    Triplex Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not an old-time modeller - I'm not even in HO anymore - but I always remember that there are modellers with other interests than mine. Anyway, I do have a personal interest in small rail because it's useful in smaller scales.
  9. zedob

    zedob Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    795
    Likes Received:
    0
    By all means use it. I was referring to that particular batch I had bought and how difficult it was to work with. I have no idea what is available for the smaller scales flextrackwise and if they are easier to form. If you are handlaying it probably wouldn't be as bad.
  10. 60103

    60103 Pooh Bah

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Zedob: I remember back in the early 60s someone warned us to check the code 70 rail carefully as it had a tendancy to come through twisted as it was so small.
    Shaygetz: I took an old Fleischman steeplecab to run on Interurban's Action in Traction layout and it hung up in the street trackage: huge flanges, undergauge wheels, who knows what else. The pantograph worked well.