Jump to content
 

Is Code 100 still used on "serious" layouts?


coachmann
 Share

Recommended Posts

I realize people can get touchy on forums about the word "serious", so what I have in mind is fully ballasted track Code 100 track amid scenery. I just wondered how much it is still used by modellers.

Edited by coachmann
Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting piece here about how Code 100 can actually be closer to true rail height for modern lines. Worth a read.

 

http://s374444733.websitehome.co.uk/code75/index.htm

 

Given OO is narrow anyway, taller rails (even if more accurate) will look out of proportion and visually highlight the smaller gauge. Code 75 and smaller really helps in this aspect.

That seems to be good, subjective, unbiased review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So would a "Modern Image" layout in EM gauge with Code 100 rail on 34mm concrete sleepers be more accurate and look better? Certainly, if you look down from an over-bridge onto a modern main line, the rail looks very deep and "code 100-like".

 

At this point, I had better casually don a tin hat and saunter in the direction of a protective wall.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I realize people can get touchy on forums about the word "serious", so what I have in mind is fully ballasted track Code 100 track amid scenery. I just wondered how much it is still used by modellers.

I have used Peco Code 100 and pointwork for 16 years without any problem.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Nothing wrong with using Code 100 in my view. One idea I hadn't thought of looks good is to increase the sleeper spacing to be more realistic. This is what Richard who is currently rebuilding his layout Everard Junction and posts updates on YouTube is doing, using Peco Streamline concrete sleeper track.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Yes it is. My previous layout Morfa had handbuilt EM track, individual chairs and timber sleepers, my current layout Vischkaai uses Peco code 100 (with a couple of set track curves) and my projected next big layout will also use Peco Streamline in its code 100 form. Though I can do finescale and make it work well I believe that it's not the finescale bits of Morfa (or its predecessor Shell Island) which had the wow factor but the arty farty bits, the composition, colour and concept which really made an impact. Vischkaai goes part way to prove that, to my eyes anyway, though with most of the track buried in cobbles it doesn't do so unequivocally. The next big thing being more mainstream will, I hope, do just that.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only really 1 judge...you.

For anyone deciding on code 100 v 75... buy a length of each & lay it on a small test board. This will also give you something to practice ballasting & weathering. Even if you try different techniques then go back to the way you did it before, you will be happier that you are doing things they way which works best for you.

 

I was intrigued by an earlier link on here to see that the reviewer felt that 100 looked better before weathering but 75 looked better afterwards.

 

Your perception will adjust to what you see most often, which will be on your own layout...or for those who use the railways frequently, they may judge appearances from what they see on the real railway, which is my benchmark.

Someone who has used code 75 for years will probably spot 100 straight away, but careful weathering will help. In the same way, an EM modeller will spot OO straight away & a P4 modeller's eyes will be drawn instantly to the comparatively huge gap between check & running rails on an EM layout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Code 100 is fine if you are modelling modern heavy duty CWR mainline trackage. Steam era is more accurate with code 75, especially if you are modelling branchlines rather than mainlines and, IMHO, looks much better. When it comes right down to it many people use code 100 because that is what they have or can get in bulk at shows whereas until recently code 75 was in the domain of those who did their own track.

 

Cheers,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peco Code 100's wide rail base ensures that rail-joiners really do hold the rail ends in line and recently,  this made it easy to lay a 36" radius curve with no flats at joins on the outdoor garden loops. 

 

So I must come clean here and say I decided to cut and fishplate Code 100 track & points for my layouts scenic section as well to see how it looked. It is currently lying on top on of the existing bullhead track waiting for me to bite the bullet.  

Edited by coachmann
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Code 100:

 

blogentry-6720-0-11292400-1307035869.jpg

 

I don't know if you'd call this serious or not  but I built this layout to use up a stash of Code 100 I'd salvaged from an earlier one,

but after some careful ballasting and painting, I was very happy with the general look of the track. I still have a fair bit of Code 100

and I'd happily use it on another project.

 

I did have some bloke at an exhibition tell me to my face that it couldn't possibly be Code 100, but, hey, I only built the layout

so what did I know.

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Much Murkle was built using code 100, primarily because I had lots of it in stock at the time.

 

post-7649-0-88799100-1530286482_thumb.jpg

Photograph by Andy York

 

Apart from couplings the trackwork is what I get most questions about at exhibitions. Very few believe that it isn't code 75.

From this angle it is clearly code 100 but from a slightly lower angle at exhibitions it is difficult to tell. The secret is in the ballasting and weathering.

  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites

Code 100 will remain in use on my current UK layout until Peco have the rest of the BH product line available......

 

Now about that Peco Code 70 US Style line of track.......

 

However Micro Engineering yard ladder turnouts look interesting for space reasons......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

post-465-0-14507500-1530289794_thumb.jpg

 

 

post-465-0-58465600-1530289823_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

Not up to Nick and Larry's standard. but I think I qualify

 

According to my wife I devote a serious amount of my time (dont mention money) to Granby  and its definitely fully ballasted.......

 

.see post #955     http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/2773-granby-junction-00-gwrlms-1947-1948/page-39?hl=granby

 

.

 

Regards from Vancouver

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm starting 'from the ground up', so to speak, I'm using code 75 on mine. Not that there is anything wrong with code 100 and as others have mentioned, it's more in proportion with post-BS113A renewals.

 

Definitely agreed on spacing the sleepers out though, for 4mm scale whether it's 75 or 100.

 

This is not particularly scientific, but I've found that with concrete sleeper Peco code 75, a really easy way to space the sleepers out is to use a Lego base as a jig. The sleepers, once the sprues are cut through, space out very easily between the Lego studs and are a comfortable interference fit between them.

This doesn't seem to work with wooden 75/100 as the sleepers are a different width, same with concrete 100 although with a bit of fettling it's possible.

 

It would be interesting to see if anyone has managed to respace the sleepers on HO pointwork to resemble OO though. Can't be an easy task!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...