Is Code 83 Track Really That Bad? Lets Experiment With A Range Of Locomotives From Around The World
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2024
- I have been advised NOT to use code 83 track for my new layout. What are your experiences?
/ 1528082198113792
Amazon: www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Patreon: / scottrails
You can contact me directly at scottrodsgarage@gmail.com - Навчання та стиль
I use code 83 and 99% of the time it works great. Unfortunately some of my stock and locos have lower couplers or cow catchers and they get snagged because of the lower rails. I like the brown ties over the black ties. Thanks for sharing.
The problem is the point frog on the code 100 track points we have the problem here in the UK all the time with the vintage locos flanges
Flangeus giganticuss 👍😂😂😂😂
Monty Phython?
I use code 75 and I've rarely had trouble even my athearn chassis irish kitbuilt locos run well, the odd lima mk3 coach would be the only post 2000 bought stock that I had to change the wheels on. Best of luck with the new layout 👍
I like code 83 due its smaller profile. I've been using it for decades, both Peco and Atlas. No issues at all. I even glue it down with caulk, and tear it up with a putty knife to reuse over and over again. Avoid the old "pizza cutter" flanges, and code 83 won't give you any problems. Some of your really old locos, especially the steamers from the 1960's and early '70's, like Rivarossi and Mehano and AHM need code 100, so, that will be something for you to deal with sooner or later if you have any of those. However, you have shown an aptitude for maintenance and no fear of tearing things apart, so, changing out the wheel sets is right in your wheelhouse.
You do you! The hobby needs to move on and not be led by experiences from yesteryear that bear no relation to where we are today. I wish I had not listened to the “you must never do this” advice when I started my layout about 2 years ago! 😊😊😊
I always listen to those who give advice, but sometimes I need to see it to believe it.
I think you are absolutely right. I think Atlas has evolved their track to work with older locos and rolling stock. Lowered the tie plates. I bought some ROCO ( Austria ) passenger cars and some cars ran on top of the plates and some did fine. We keep a stockpile of track around for repair and expansion and no telling how old it is.
not so much that Atlas evolved their track but they bought out a better company. Atlas code 83 is essentially Shinohara track.
Hey Dave
I think all the concern is from us Brits that might still have some older Triang stock that really did have flangious maximus. They barely run on code 100 let alone 83 or 75 (peco’s fine scale version).
As for the old GWR 0-4-0 adjusting the wheel spacing might help, back to back measurements are often a bit narrow so struggle on some points/turnouts. Which is I think why it runs better on the fine scale code 83.
David.
the 1950s/early Triang wheels are easy enough to reprofile with a drill and a file. The Shakey Hands Shed channel recently did this with an ancient R153 0 6 0 SADDLE TANK and showed how easy it is.
Yes m8 you are right
@@ArcadiaJunctionModelTrains Is that right? I've been considering doing that on a couple of old locos I have.
I'd better check out that video. I've seen Shakey Hands in the past.
Hey Dave, how ya been?
Been doing this for over 50 years. Code 83 will run any equipment manufactured after around 1975 or so. Some earlier made equipment will have wheel flanges that will be too deep and bottom out on turnout / crossing frogs. If you wanted to bulletproof your layout so you can use older equipment without replacing wheel sets then code 100 would do it. For what it's worth I starting a new layout using code 83.
One can also retrofit older equipment with new rp-25 wheels as an alternative.
Have fun, whatever you decide !
As I said code 100 was what I seen the 0-4-0 derailment on your video. great content on all your channel keep it up 👍
Re older wheelsets - it is not just the flange that is a problem, the old wheels are correspondingly thicker as well. They can cause cause shorts on points\crossings at the frog by extending over the width of the insulation.
Great video and Bravo to you and you're right about everything you said at the end.
I would check your rolling stock as well, not just your locos, as they could be more troublesome. Especially through the turnouts.
All Kato HO unitrack uses code 83. As far as your live stream tonight its the Super Bowl south of the border. Another fun video!
I'm sure some folk will keep me updated with the score tonight.
I'm glad to see modern code 83 worked with your equipment. I think you're correct about modern track possibly having lower profile spikes my train club used 25 year old code 83 and my older Bachmann locomotives would sound derailed since the flanges were hitting the tops. The only thing I would be curious to see is how well old hornby tri-aing 00 locomotives operate on it, I know it's not intended for any HO track but it does seem to operate on Peco code 100.
In process of building my around the room layout, bought all Atlas code 83 track/turnouts/etc. I have tested with multiple locomotives/rolling stock. No issues at all as long as track is placed properly. Enjoyed your video experiment! Thanks for sharing!
2 things you need to try
1. switches and crossovers, there is where you can have issues. The points can catch it
2. rubber band drive, they might go down the track, until you hit a point. ""Darth Santa Fe" talks about how he had to modify his blue box budd RDC
Yep. Bumpity- Bump on 19 degree Diamond in Code 83 versus Smooth in Code 100.
@@stevelittle1885 isn't that a song?
Here comes the Galloping Major ... Stanley Holloway did a version. @@billfusionenterprise
Lol
Someone forgot to tell you.............Very old AHM before 1975 will have those flanges. Old Rivarossi will sometimes have them. You will be able to tell the difference when you look at them. It's obvious. The key is 100 is guaranteed where 83 is not. 83 is used for prototype layouts. I use 83 just for the look. You are just taking a chance something won't run if you use 83. 83 is usually for the Model Railroader that has been doing this for awhile. Happy Rails!
I have found that code 83 manufactured curved and straight (snap tracks) are more forgiving than flex track. Flex appears to have higher spike heads, probably for strength. But pre made curves are limiting in terms of free flowing design and transitions. I even thought about laying the flex. Then gluing the outside of the rail to the ties and then using some form of jig and file and scraping the inside spike heads a bit. I haven't done anything yet as I only have one very old ten wheeler and plenty of 83 capable locomotives. May explore changing the drivers with something from a dead ihc locomotive. Who knows what I will do. Since you will have multiple loops just keep one at code 100 and live happy.
I have discovered this discrepancy between flex and snap track (at least Atlas) as well. I run a mix of American, British, and German trains as well, and I have noticed some of the bigger-flanged equipment will touch the spike heads on the flex track, but not the snap track.
I’m using code 100, just because I got a good deal on a ton of it. Only thing I’ve always heard and seen is taller on the main then lower when going into industry’s. Layouts I’ve ran OPs on are all different. Use what you want and what works for you. 😊
It becomes an issue with more realistic wheel flanges on wagons and box cars. Take an American boxcar with RP25 wheels or shallower. That's 4 axles and 8 wheels per single car. Now think of a rake of 10 boxcars and a caboose and the chance of derailments is a real issue. By sheers odds alone. If one has perfect track with literally not a single wheel or section of track out of gauge, then you'll get away with it. But even things like variation in temperture can affect such tight tolerances.
I would rather have fun and reliability rather than frustration for the sake of fidelity. Over the years I have returned to Code 100 switches/points as the perfect blank canvas for running all my trains over. They are also less expensive and easier to repair and replace.
My layout is all Code 83 but its just a shunting layout so all good so far. Only issue is with rolling stock and locomotives with large flange wheel sets which need to be changed when discovered. Of course the worst part of the track for this is the frog on switches/points/crossovers. The other thing is I beileve there is more selection of track components with Code 100 comnpared to Code 83.
I've heard the same rumours about code 83 and below. Funny it's only you that's actually tested it live as it were. Your maybe right. Rumour is from a previous incarnation of the track. Yours seems to tick the boxes with your loco's so bonus 😉👍
The main thing for me is, it runs all my big diesels, and my Hornby stuff, so I'm happy.
@@ScottRails that's what counts. 👍
Code 83 is good if you want to have a realistic rail height, Code 100 is good if you don't mind having a slightly oversized rail or if you know or suspect you will run older stuff that has deep flanges on your layout.
Use whatever is available for you, use what works for you, and remember that it's YOUR railroad.
Anyways, you should also keep in mind that you can use different rail sizes along your layout, for example on the mainlines you can use Code 100, and on the sidings, yards, and branchlines use Code 83. The Code 100 looks like the big heavy rail used on high traffic routes, and the 83 looks like the smaller lighter rail used in areas that will see a train every now and then at slower speeds and lighter weights.
Again, it really just boils down to what you do and want to run, but keep in mind modern track is made very differently than older track. Back in the day the "spikes" that held the rail to the ties were gargantuan because they had to be, now they are literally HO scale, so unless your locomotives have absolutely massive flanges, like we're talkin flangicus giganticus, you can run it on Code 100 and 83. Just don't put a non scale contour wheel on code 53, 63 or 73, you won't have any fun at all (if you can find it for sale anywhere)
You have proved the skeptic wrong again. Time to tear up the old and put down the new
Very nice demonstration that Code 83 is a good choice. and looks to be more natural
Well done, and easily followed. Thank you.
Thank you SO MUCH for this type of comparison. I have some never - run A.H.M. locos I thought I might have to unload. Now I'll put DCC in them!
With the FLANGERVITOUS, check the gap between the wheels on each axle, as you'll find they my be to small. They should be 14.4 mm back to back, using a vernier caliper. It will also stop the derailing at your points. Another thing is do not solder the rail joiners to the track as it won't allow for the track to move when it expands and contracts in the hot and cold weather, and leave a small gap between each rail.
I think your going to be fine a lot of the problem was ( older as in OLD ENGINES AND COACHES from Britain manufacturerd pretty 70s) and even then biggest problems occurred in switch yards when going over multiple points consecutively so onward and upward
Well. Sounds like I'll be using Atlas code 83 track when I eventually start building my own layout! Kudos for such a thorough testing of the track!
Great experiment DR Dave. Thermo Nuclear engineering physicist type person. 😂
Nah, that's my wife's job ;-)
I have had no problems with my code 83 Track. I do have the newer variety,though. Great video Dave. I remember having a loco or two with Flangitis, back when I first started in the Hobby. Thanks for sharing!
My friends layout is code 83 track, and we have never had a problem with the track or derailment. Looking forward to seeing your progress.
Code 83 is also closer to scale than code 100
Happy modelling :-)
very interesting Dave 👍👍👍
I started with code 100 and will stick with it as I never had any derailments using code 100 & I do have some older engines and rolling stock. Besides that I've already got 75 feet of code 100 nickel silver flex track. Cheers from eastern TN
I think you'll be fine with code 83! That Great Western steamer may be having trouble with switches due to the wheels being slightly out of gauge or maybe not. The only major trouble I've ever seen is on some layouts that use code 70 for mains and code 55 for sidings/spurs/yards. Equipment has to be "just right" to work properly in that case. I'm really excited to see the work as you progress. One thing I do: Have some sectional track handy to set up a loop just for fun, even if it's on your work table.
Thanks Jim. I have opted to NOT have a small section to play with, as I will never get the work done if I'm busy playing with trains, hahaha.
Thank you Scott
Hi Dave, we use an oval of Piko code 83 as a test circuit, and have had no problems at all running everything from ancient 1950’s vintage knurled wheeled Tri-ang transcontinental stock to the most up to date Bachmann, Hornby and other manufacturers. However getting the older stuff to run through point work is another matter as the back to backs of the wheel sets is a lot tighter than modern stock with much finer wheels.
go for it, I saw great layouts build with code 83 and mine to with no problems
Hmmm, all my Märklin track is Code 83 and NEVER a problem with anything. Most Euro models are designed with Coade 83 in mind, so things run smoothly at all speeds.
I think they must have changed the design of those sleeper plates. They are incredibly small on this track.
Code 83 has and always will be my go to favorite. Peco is great but it's super expensive. I've never had derailment issues caused by the track, only my negligence. If you ever have issues with locomotives on it, they make transition tracks so you can connect code 100 on one side and code 83 on the other so you could potentially make a smaller secondary loop for those older locomotives and rolling stock that don't like code 83! Great video as always! Best of luck!
I have some of those transitional rail connectors, so I'll maybe use some 100 for the inner loop.
Re angle grinding older wheels if necessary - be wary of the heat generated, it can melt the plastic insulators if the wheels are fitted with them (ask me how I know). Use a heat sink of some sort.
If you have any contacts with milling equipment, milling is a better way to go.
Using code 83 for building a new layout, but that is 'Oberbau K' with way higher (and larger) tie plates, so more problematic compared to the US track type shown here. Tillig only guarantees correct functioning with NEM310 or lower wheel profiles...
I started off with Code 83 rails and had no problems. Even with British model trains. The only reason I switched to Kato Unitrack was I wanted turns wider than 24” (the widest you could get with Atlas set track) without having to go to Bachmann EZ track or Atlas flextrack.
I swear by my code 83 track n points. You've seen all the points I have lined up and all my locos run through them easy. You'll not regret using it Dave,
We have the same issues with N scale (code 55 vs 80). I went with code 55 track and don't regret it, even though older equipment often needs work (new wheels at minimum). I would much rather have better looking track and upgrade the older equipment, but it's also more expensive since new metal wheels are roughly $4 USD per car, and if you need trucks and couplers too the cost can quickly add up. (trucks are $9 a set, and couplers are $8 /pair if you don't assemble them yourself).
I like your approach. Test things yourself. If you're happy with how it works, do it! If in doubt, test it yourself so you know what happens. I follow the same methods myself...
I use code 83 and code 70 for my model railroad. If the turnouts that I needed had been available in code 70, I would have used all code 70. So only the yard and industry spurs are code 70 I'm in the United States and the equipment on my layout has NMRA RP25 flanged wheels. The RP25 standard was adopted in 1961. HO scale Equipment with RP25 flanges can run on rails as low as code 40. Code 40 has to be hand laid as only one manufacturer provides code 55 turnouts and flex track.
Ya got a promising career as a code 83 track salesman!
If only, lol.
It is not so much the curves and straight sections, it is when going over/through the frog on the points the plastic parts raise the flanges up and then the loco derails. Different manufacturers put larger or smaller amounts of plastic in the frogs to make up the points and that is the main issue.
If you wanted to test code 83 track with deep flanged locomotives you should have tried 1970s era Rivarossi steam locomotives!
Oh and the blue Conrail RS-3 is an AHM/Rivarossi, not a Tyco/Mantua.😊
Actually I think it’s a Mehano. But well spotted.
I have yet to install my code 83. I have heard that old rivarosi and some old bachman will not like it. That includes older steam engines. All of my modern stuff will be fine, so I've heard.
Dear Scott, over here in the Netherlands code 83 is considered the prototypical standard. Two of the closest by hobby shops offer a service to ‘turn’ (on the lathe) the flanges down to the appropriate depth for code 83, or for that matter, any specific type of necessary wheel flange depth.
Of course, it’s kind of a pain if one wants to run older models, and one needs this kind of service. However, my experience is that those models which have been adjusted for their wheel flange depth run better than ever before.
It’s kinda odd Hornby still produces those models with the gargantuan flanges. But then again the go to track they offer is code 100. Don’t think many British fine scale modelers use these wheel sets. If alone they have these kinds of trains in their collection. In the fine scale range there’s an emphasis on modeling both the track and wheels to the highest accuracy. Same counts for prototype modelers in North America. Might even be possible to find prototype wheels for the specific loco that sounded like it was hitting the rail chairs.
Anyway, I humbly think it’s a question of what a modeler wants to achieve. For just running trains, code 100 may very well be appropriate. But when we’re talking modeling track it becomes a different discussion. And for that particular aspect of the hobby, I at least don’t know anyone who isn’t satisfied with the code 83, 80, 75, 70, or 55 track they built. Cheerio
Thanks for taking the time to post this comment. A flange reduction service sounds great.
im 63 I have been modeling railroads since I was 7 i have always used code 100 it look more realistic ^5 to you
My Jouef (French) HO Amtrak RTG Turboliner rides the spikes on my Atlas Code 83 Flex Track quite loudly like a machine gun. I suppose at some point I will re-power it at both ends and change out the wheelsets for something with NMRA RP-25 wheel profile. Btw, I thought I could hear Thomas and that Great Western 0-4-0s doing it on the straight section. I think on the curves they were slightly riding up on the railhead sides due to the high throttle setting you were using thereby not touching the spikes.
They are both quite clunky locos, and to be honest, I can live without running them if they are going to misbehave.
Being interested in British models, I've always wanted to use kato code 83 track, but I've always been uncertain about it. I might give it a try though.
they all to seem to run great
Hi Scott I have a mixture of both Peco code 83 and Code 100 track the code 100 is in sidings only Peco make a short track to marry the 2 together I have had the problem of trains falling off but it is not the flanges that make it happen I have a proto 2000 E8 with a rake of carriages that does this regularly it is not the loco but the carriages that come off on a straight after a certain bend I don't know the reason why this happens it may have something to do with the length of the carriages? but nearly all my other freight carriages and locos don't seem to have the problem. thanks for the video Thanks for the video but it doesn't full answer the question. the other thing about Peco code 83 is it is more expensive than code 100. Keep up the good work cheers Steve
I have some passenger coaches that will happily go round the track for hours, and then for absolutely no reason, they just derail, lol. Maybe they just get bored.
I do not have any rolling stock with pizza cutter flanges. My stuff runs fine on code 83 and code 70.
Chain saw Time Dave , get started
Hi Dave, think you right on track 😎😎😎😎😎
I see what you did there.
@@ScottRails 😁😁😁😁
Also, Brass Engines will not run on 83 very well.
Honestly it's the really old locomotives that are the biggest issue probably dating back to the 70's or earlier. Rolling stock is easily fixed by replacing the wheels. The old locomotives don't really have any easy solution to fixing that problem, as you can't find a replacement for those wheels most of the time. I have heard of some people going through the effort to sand down some of the flange depth, but at that point I rather just buy something newer or if you are really wanting to run them just build a layout using code 100. Obviously the other big issue comes from some turnouts causing them to bounce as the deep flanges rise the wheel off the rail over the point that can then cause a derailment. Everything I've seen you run so far should work fine on code 83, with maybe a few issues on turnouts, but even brand new stuff can still have issues.
I'm not against the idea of grinding down the flanges on an electric sander, hehehe.
Well Done Sir. I Have to agree with your conclusion. Modern Code 83 Track actually works better than Code 100 because of the finer detailed Tie plates. As you pointed out they are MUCH lower profile. The only problem I have had is with the Atlas Code 83 19 degree diamond crossing. MAJOR BUMPITY-BUMP even with Newest High end Locos and Rolling Stock. I even bought a second one because I thought I got a defective piece. But Same-Same. Interestingly Atlas Code 100 19 degree Diamond is smooth as silk..I cant tell the cause. Maybe I got 2 Code 83s from same Bad Batch? Cheers, Steve.
I have the same bump issue on my current diamond, so I'm just not going to add one. It also causes DCC shorts.
My 19 Degrees Diamonds never made it to the Current layout. I do have Dcc Now and am running a 90 degree diamond with no problems . However all my Track is Kato Unitrack (HO Kato is Code 83) Kato does offer a Double Crossover so my plan was to splice in a set of Atlas #6s and Diamond. I have seen this done with a Walthers (Shinohara) pre built unit. The Unitrack track spacing is 60 mm ( Which I like) so a 2 inch spaced Prebuilt set up didn't appeal to me. I hadn't thought about DCC shorts. Thanks for mentioning it. I do like a Challenge but this could be of Worms. I'll Be watching the Live Stream tonight. My request is the Virgin Rail Passenger Train. I saw it on the Rubber Band Bargain Traction Tire Video. Thanks. Cheers, Steve
Correction ..I meant to type: Kato DOES NOT OFFER A DOUBLE CROSSOVER IN HO.
I use Kato Unitrack which I believe is code 83. I do get some problems with some models... But usually that is very specific to 1960s and prior Marklin Hamo or Fleishman or old 1960s Hornby. Modern Trix (Marklin 2 rail) or other modern European stuff works fine. I have never had any issues with North American stuff, such as Athearn or Tyco; nor problems with those European brands that make North American stuff like Rivarossi or AHM.
--So it seems to me that it has to do with the time period when modern standards came in to play for flanges and became adopted more universally.
Hi Dave,
I use both code 83 and 100 on my layout. Both look and operate well. The issue on some switches is the back to back spacing on the guard rails (too far apart). The flanges of the wheels are not only deeper but also thicker reducing the back to back spacing on the wheelset. The wheels ride up on the guard rail and de-rail. As you noticed the loco that jumped up on the code 100 switch, but ran fine on the code 83.
Why does your Thomas only have 4 wheels?
Well spotted. Must have got it from the dollar store, hehehe.
A LOT OF OLDER TRAINS WILL NOT MAKE IT THROUGH CODE 83 SWITCHES AND CROSS OVERS THE WHEEL FLANGES BOTTOM OUT IN THEM .
It's ok, I have an angle grinder and I'm not afraid to use it.
like you just said in the video...lol
Yeah I have no idea who is saying not to use code 83 but that’s a ridiculous piece of advice. It looks great and is better quality as a whole. The big thing is the replacement of low quality wheels on your rolling stock, it does demand those sorts of upgrades. Personally, once I get it off the floor, my mainlines will still be code 100 for cost sake, but everything else with be 83.
The Atlas track I bought was cheaper than anything else.
@@ScottRailsthat’s cause you bought it from Tiny Railroads no? lol Scotty is cheaper for pretty much everything. But code 100 flex still tends to be cheaper, and I have no problem buying used.
I am using Code 83 Walthers track the most expensive code 83 track
@@dundasjunctionmodelr.r-jam8267 the walthers stuff is really nice, i just struggle with paying for the switches. i have 15 code 83 vs 77 code 100 lol.
Can't you get code 75 as well, maybe that's the stuff they had trouble with and not the 83.
This is one thing that I hate about the hobby which is misinformation about the hobby. A lot of this issue was due to older Rivarossi (1970s to 1980s) equipment that did not meet the NMRA standards of RP25 for the flanges. In modern years, even Rivarossi changed their flanges from the old "pizza cutters" to the modern RP25 standards. So, is there anything that would causes an issue? Older European equipment may cause a problem along with trying to use OO gauge equipment on track with a code under 100. Also, as seen, OO gauge can even be finicky even on code 100 track. As a person who has used Atlas code 83, I can say that I had very little issues with the track. The only thing that I can say which code 100 has an advantage over code 83 is price. Code 100 track tends to be cheaper, but it can be used with code 83 track if transition rail joiners are used. So, this video shows the proof about the common misinformation about using any code size bellow 100.
Thanks Cass, I'm pretty happy with how this experiment turned out. If that small green steamer was running better, it would have looked even more conclusive.
Use code 83 on my entire layout, never an issue...
Good to know.
code 83 is just fine poor track work and flanges can be a problem on cheaper or older equipment i run 0n30 (which is ) scale on code 83
Got code 83 and code 70 just get rid of the old ahm
Largely myth. The fact is, you probably wouldn't want any models that won't run on modern code 83. I run older locos on code 75 (UK outline), and only a couple vintage Triang models touch the chairs - and they aren't locos that I care to run anyway. Even my older Lima models run fine, and those are not the greatest runners in the first place.