Peco Code 83 track

[Old Gringo]

Greetings to all those members interested in trains and railways on the 'other side of the pond'.

Although I've been an RMweb 'addict' for six months and posted quite a few replies, this is my first topic post, so apologies in advance if it's something that has been discussed before.

The subject (which has had a 'highball' from Pete), is the result of a message I had from RMweb member Jonte, "What is my assessment of Peco Code 83 track?" My answer was, "We are using the product for our layout" but I have to admit that we don't know exactly how our stock will run yet, because all we've done so far is lay the track and roll some wagons up and down, to check alignment, joints and levels, etc.

After the question was introduced onto the 'Once upon a time' thread (in this section) it produced a series of replies, but not necessarily any more answers. (I've not posted a link, but if you want to read the background, go to page 10 of our thread, posts 241 to 251, and where Pete gives the idea his blessing).

As stated before, I'm already committed to the product for our layout (because I picked up a number 8 turnout and was immediately hooked on the appearance). However, I have no connection with the company, or any other sales outlet, but I am interested to know what others think, or have experienced with it.

So, following on from the previous posts and discussion about the merits of different track standards, (and I appreciate that Pete, and perhaps many other modellers of U.S. and Canadian prototypes have not yet seen this brand), for those who have had experience of Peco Code 83 H0 track "how does it perform and how do you rate it ?"

Thanks in advance for all your inputs,

John.

[Old Gringo]

Maybe to help answer the question, "Why did I choose Peco Code 83 ?", here's some of my (recent) modelling history.
 
After years of collecting books and information on U.S. railroad practice, plus a few models, I decided to build a layout (along with my friends and RMweb members, 2ManySpams and Indomitable 026).  Although the period we eventually chose to model 'Once upon a time . . . in the west' was 1919, I made the decision to use Peco Code 83 track, for the three following reasons.

First: I just loved the look of the first number 8 electrofrog turnout / switch / point that I picked up. (Now here's a mini-question, which of those name tags is correct for U.S. practice ? I've seen all three used on occasions in Model Railroader) The No. 8 looked great and I decided this was the track I wanted to use on our layout.

Second: It is said to be correct for U.S./Canadian standard track - 130lb per yard flat bottom rail, number of ties per yard of track, etc. (although I now know that these vary quite a bit, depending on class of railroad, train weights carried, road-bed conditions, etc.). I realised that the height of the rail was a bit too 'heavy' for a shortline in our time period, but I thought with careful ballasting and weathering, I could live with the result as long as the running quality of the finished track was good.

Third: I could source it easily in the U.K. and I believed from previous experience with Code 75 that the Peco brand was good quality product. So, laid with reasonable care we should be able to produce a reliable model railway with the Code 83 track.

However, the question I never asked anybody before investing my cash, "How does this relatively new product perform and how do you rate it?" - which brings us back to "What is your assessment ?"

All the best, John

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Gringo, all,

 

IMHO, I rate it pretty highly. It looks good, conforms to NMRA specs, has a definite "frog angle" geometry,

(as opposed to PECO's more traditional "streamline" geometry),

 

and works on ChicagHO Fork

http://carendt.us/scrapbook/page103a/index.html#chicago-fork

 

It has been "plug it in and turn it on" compatible with correctly-gauged loco and rollingstock wheelsets from

- Athearn

- Atlas

- FDT

- Proto 2000

- AR Kits

- AM Models

- Kadee

- Steam Era Models

- Bachmann

 

and equally "don't need to think about it, just plug in and run it" compatible with both analog DC and DCC operations

(personally tested with NCE Powercab/SB3 system, if that's relevant).

 

There isn't a whole lot of visible difference between the ElectroFrog (metal frog) and InsulFrog (insulated frog) versions,

so look carefully on the packet when you buy!

 

Speaking of the packet, it's not the traditional PECO cardboard box. The way it is sealed is pretty hardy, so it may take a pair of scissors to get to the turnout. (There is a performated flap, but I've never used it). Just be careful as you do, as even on the packet it warns against unduly flexing the turnout, and possibly bending it!

 

Quoting direct from the packet rear panel:

"...To ensure that this product reaches you in perfect condition we have created new style extra strong pacakaging and we reccomend you adopt the following procedure to avoid damage when opening. remove rear panel completely by tearing along perforations. If necessary, insert a steel ruler or similar to make a start. Working with the pack face down on a table will help keep everything flat and prevent distortion..."

Caboose Industries 216s sprung N scale ground throws are a "bolt on" solution for manual control, if that's your preference.

 

Regular Kadee between-the-rails magnets will sit excessively proud of the rail if mounted directly on top of the molded plastic sleepers. This can cause issues with low-hanging diesel gearboxes and mis-adjusted coupler trip-pins. Removing the sleepers from between the rails in the area required, building up a pad of styrene strip, and gluing the uncoupler in is one solution. Alternatively, use the regular 308 under-track uncoupler magnets, and all will be well :-)

 

Oh, and how does it look?

 

 

and at "scale eye level"

 

 

...and as a final reason for using it, at least for me,

it's _available_ down here in Oz,

at a price that's _do-able_,

 

unlike ME or other "track is a model" grade US trackage options...

(while still being completely compatible with ME, DA, and other proto87 "turnout detail dress-up kits")

 

Hope this helps...

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

PS AFAIK, in US terminology, "turnout" is considered "most commonly used/understood".

In US terms, a "Switch" is an electrical device, and "point" is what someone does to indicate in a given direction/at a given object

(although, remember that for some Canadians in "English Canada", "the Queens English" is more appropriate, and thus "point" may be the accepted term...)

[trisonic]

Thanks, Prof. Does well built stock run through the turnouts without any bumps or drops?

 

Best, Pete.

[Northpoint]

Hi All

 

I agree with the Prof about the appearance but I did find it very fragile, especially compared to code 100. If you have any section joints in the layout, it definitely needs some reinforcement, such as soldered to copper sleeper strip or similar. The rail tends to come away from the spikes very easily.

 

But, overall,a good product and I would recommend it.

[Oldddudders]

I have been using Peco Code 83 for the last 6 years, having previously used their Code 100 and Code 75.

 

I find the chair/rail relationship to be visually very satisfying for flextrack, but it is necessarily less robust than Code 100, so be gentle with it when curving etc.

 

My finding with wheel standards is that modern US diesels, be they 4- or 6-axle, take pointwork very easily. Some modern steam locos less so. Long fixed-wheelbase steamers (BLI, Spectrum) are predictably the worst, so my Santa Fe 4-8-4 can be a bit clunky through certain points - and will cheerfully derail where I have not allowed an easement off a curve into a #6 turnout. 4-8-2s and 2-10-2s seem similarly ill-inclined, but less so. On the other hand, the articulateds - 4-6-6-4, 2-8-8-2, 2-6-6-2 all sweep happily through. 2-8-2s are just easy everywhere.

 

I have not found it necessary to even consider an alternative trackage system, frankly.

[F-UnitMad]

I have some Code 83 turnouts ready for my next venture; yet to get any flexitrack, but having seen it 'in action' on one of Chris Gilbert's projects it looks good - main thing being it depicts spiked rail rather than chaired rail.

I have used Code 75 Peco with US HO years ago and never had any trouble at all; I can't see there being any "issues" with Code 83..??

[Old Gringo]

Thanks, Prof, Nick and Ian, for giving Code 83 your individual "stamps of approval".

 

And also for adding some useful advice on using the product.

 

Oddly enough, this very afternoon, Damian gave his Bachmann 2-10-0 it's first run out on one of our base-boards and added his note of approval, plus a couple of photos to our thread.

 

Thanks for all the replies. So far, it seems like it really is going to be as good as it looks.

 

All the best, John.

[Prof Klyzlr]

Thanks, Prof. Does well built stock run through the turnouts without any bumps or drops?

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

Dear Pete,

 

Haven't had any "draw attention to itself" issues with any of the equipment mentioned in the prevous post...

 

Worth noting that I used the #5 turnouts, but I don't have or intend to run anything larger than 4-axle GPs...

(SW1500s mostly...)

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

[CraigZ]

Code 83 Peco turnouts are, over here in my group anyway, regarded as pretty much the standard to which everything else is compared in code 83. It looks good and even more important to us, runs well. Not butter smooth as good handlaid of course, but still good. I plan to use them on my layout...I already have a couple of hundred feet of Micro Engineering code 83 flex for the main lines. Sidings will be code 70 or code 55 hand laid, with a little code 40 (!) thrown in for really decrepit old sidings.

[BR60103]

My belief is that turnout is the term used by the track engineering department and switch by everyone else. (No one buys turnouting engines).

Point is an exclusively British term for the whole set (we use points just for the tapered rails that move).

 

Peco's code 83 looks far too American for my layout.

[Prof Klyzlr]

My belief is that turnout is the term used by the track engineering department and switch by everyone else. (No one buys turnouting engines).

Point is an exclusively British term for the whole set (we use points just for the tapered rails that move).

 

Peco's code 83 looks far too American for my layout.

 

Dear David,

 

What is the intended theme of the layout?

If it's a US-themed layout, I'm intrigued by the idea of looking too American ...

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

[Jez]

Here are a couple of pictures of Peco Code 83 on Harrington:

 

 

 

I don't think I would use anything else now - Code 83 is easily available (This side of the pond), looks good and easy to work with. I do tend to use insulfrogs though for ease of wiring, but that's only because I am a thickie and purely a personal choice. I do agree with the 'fragile' comments though and pressing down on the sleepers on Woodland Scenics foam underlay is not recommended - DOH!

 

Jez

[F-UnitMad]

Peco's code 83 looks far too American for my layout.

Like the good Prof, I too am intrigued by this comment....

 

When I saw Jez's Harrington, above, at TVNAM last year, it was outstanding the difference in appearance that Code 83 makes over the other Peco series, when depicting US track. I think I noticed it so much then because there's so much track on Harrington..!!

[trisonic]

Jez's photo's look nice. The point blades look better than the Code 75 - Jez says he is using "Insulfrog" but I would never had said that from the pics....

 

Best, Pete.

[Donny4472]

I'm using Peco Code 83 on my current project. I haven't started laying it yet, but will report back when i have. My last project was UK 'N' Gauge Code 55, so risk of fragile track shouldn't be an issue hopefully. I will be strengthening track at the board joins though.

 

cheers

 

Donny

[BR60103]

Dear David,

 

What is the intended theme of the layout?

If it's a US-themed layout, I'm intrigued by the idea of looking too American ...

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

Photo of the end of Exeter (St Dayle's) station. Further explanation will go elsewhere.

Comment was a reaction to local complaints of Peco's code 100 looking too "British".

[Prof Klyzlr]

Photo of the end of Exeter (St Dayle's) station. Further explanation will go elsewhere.

Comment was a reaction to local complaints of Peco's code 100 looking too "British".

 

 

Dear David,

 

Understood. Guess it's yet another "horses for courses" situation,

 

only in this case, the bastion of UK-outline model trackage, PECO,

 

saw that there was a market in providing "US geometry" to those US-outline modellers who

- couldn't get M.E. or similar wherever they were/are

- weren't keen on the idea of handlaying,

- and were tired of "overlooking" the geometry of the UK-styled "Streamline" series trackage on their "US-outline" layouts...

 

Whatever track system one chooses,

"If it's working for you, you must be having fun..."

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

[Allegheny1600]

Peco's code 83 looks far too American for my layout.

^^^

He, he! I thought you meant it was "too American" because you're Canadian! (or, from Canadia!).

Back to the OP, I've seen one large layout (the new H0 from Crewe NMRA!) in action at Kegworth in 2010 - and the action of stock over their (unballasted) track was superb! The stock only tended to do the 'rock & roll' thing when traversing odd bits of Peco code 75 they had used.

I was so impressed that when my club (MMRS) started to build a new US H0 layout (Greenbrier Jct.), I made sure that we used the code 83 track on it. (I will get around to doing a little 'shunty' plank of my own, one day!).

John E.

[Steve Williams]

Have limited experience of using it and find no problems as far as running stock is concerned. If the rail 'pings' out of the spikes, however, forget trying to get it back (at least I have never managed it. The only other issue (if that's not too strong a word), is that I would prefer to see the extended sleepers project both sides of the turnout, like, I believe, ME does. This would enable the user to determine which side to have the extension by lopping off the side not needed. In some cases, one needs to have them on the opposite side to how they are produced.

 

Steve

[Northpoint]

I agree with Steve about the extended sleepers for the switchstand.

 

One point nobody else seems to have made (although I might have missed it) is why is it so much more expensive than the code 75 or code 100?

 

Surely the production costs must be similar.

[BR60103]

I bought some Peco track pins today. Side by side were the traditional pins and Code 83 pins. Code 83 were a dollar more for what looked like an identical product.

[Northpoint]

I bought some Peco track pins today. Side by side were the traditional pins and Code 83 pins. Code 83 were a dollar more for what looked like an identical product.

 

An example of pricing over here at one of the discount stores: code 100 large radius point £10.75, code 83 #6 £13.10 = approximately 25% more.

 

Just wondering why, that's all!

[trisonic]

As an aside:

 

Anyone use Peco Code 83 crossings with ME Code 83 track and their #6 turnouts? I'm thinking of height differences and any other compatibility issues....

 

Best, Pete.

[dave_long]

Pete

You might find thats even harder for us over this side, its even harder to get ME code 83 than their code 70. My Miami layout uses ME code 70, unfortunately I've had to use Shinohara turnouts as the ME ones that I ordered back in January still haven't arrived. The sidings Tamworth sell code 70 ME if any one is interested, they have plain track in stock but are having issues with the turnouts, ( I ordered my turnouts with them ) Apparently even ME had run out.