Is Code 100 still used on "serious" layouts?

[ColinK]

Yes. My layout uses code 100 and even Peco foam ballast.  It has done many exhibitions and not a single person has criticised the track and ballast.  Many are surprised when I tell them what it is.

[Butler Henderson]

I

29 minutes ago, ColinK said:

Yes. My layout uses code 100 and even Peco foam ballast.  It has done many exhibitions and not a single person has criticised the track and ballast.  Many are surprised when I tell them what it is.

I've had the same reaction as well albeit not using the foam ballast = its all down to how its presented and the fact the typical viewer is 3ft away, in the same way that model that the rivet counters have gone to town on looks perfectly like what's its suppose to  be at that distance.  

[Great Eastern Lady]

I’m going to be using code 100 on my BLT, along with some set track straights . I won’t be using flexi track as I find it can be a bit fragile 

Plus my layout needs to be portable and code 100 seems to be a bit more sturdy for the joints 

[Pacific231G]

On 01/01/2020 at 16:18, Andy Reichert said:

 

Using commercial "branding" to identify pre-fabbed track work by rail height kind of hides the issue that how flat and firm your road bed is, determines how smoothly and reliably your otherwise good track will operate.  Using a heavier gauge rail to provide firmness over a bumpy roadbed, is more of a fudge than a fix.

 

Those who hand build track on an excellent base can usually use scale rail heights with no problems. It's just more planning and time consuming work.

 

Andy

Hi Andy

hand built track, even with scale rail heights, is likely to be stronger than with commercial moulded sleepering simply because of the fixings used, especally if it involves soldering the rail to something. In the past I've built track on  coper clad sleepers (I tend to use that now but just for board ends) and spiked when I was modelling N. American prototypes. Both were pretty solid but  I'm not sure if my much older eyes and ands could achieve the same reliabiility now.

 

I was looking at the track on my local Network Rail branch line recently and they definitely used overscale rail. It looked very unrealistic!

Edited January 26, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Andy Reichert]

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Andy

hand built track, even with scale rail heights, is likely to be stronger than with commercial moulded sleepering simply because of the fixings used, especally if it involves soldering the rail to something. In the past I've built track on  coper clad sleepers (I tend to use that now but just for board ends) and spiked when I was modelling N. American prototypes. Both were pretty solid but  I'm not sure if my much older eyes and ands could achieve the same reliabiility now.

 

I was looking at the track on my local Network Rail branch line recently and they definitely used overscale rail. It looked very unrealistic!

 

Rail has become heavier on all prototypes over the years, although more so in the US that other places I suspect.

 

I'm not a PCB sleeper fan. The melted solder that solidifies in the final joint is still just the same soft alloy that it was when it came of the reel.

 

Andy

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

Ignore the first few minutes - all in the hidden trackage. But this is definitely a serious layout and I am fairly sure it is Code 100.

 

Rather more to my taste than the big German layouts with tracks going everywhere. Superb scenery which really captures the feel of Sweden.

[Nova Scotian]

Has anyone tried modifying code 83 for UK outline? Is it best of both worlds (especially for modern outline), or is it terribly American?

[Pacific231G]

On 27/02/2020 at 01:54, Nova Scotian said:

Has anyone tried modifying code 83 for UK outline? Is it best of both worlds (especially for modern outline), or is it terribly American?

Though I quite fancy the range of turnouts in Peco's code 83 line, they are designed to be to scale for typical North American tie (sleeper) spacing  in 1:87 scale. That and the narrower North American cross ties (sleepers) are a bit of a giveaway.

For this and other reasons North American track generally does look distinctly different from any found in Britain and the rest of Europe.

 

Standard American wooden cross ties are 9inches wide (min 8" max 10" according to the Railway Tie Association) whereas European- including British- sleepers are usually 10inch (250mm) wide.

North American cross ties are generally laid at 19" to 19.5" (50cm) spacing whereas in Britain spacing is usually 25" (650mm) but can range from 600mm  - 760mm (24" to 30")  

 

Peco Streamline is very close to 1:87 scale for track with typical wooden sleepers at 600mm spacing (standard for main lines in France and probably elsewhere) For branch lines and sidings they're a bit too close even in H0. 

 

I've always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the closer spacing of American cross ties stems from their use of spikes which give a somewhat less strong fixing for each tie than the fang bolts etc. used on this side of the Atlantic. They were though a lot faster to lay given the greater distances involved and timber was more abundant. The other difference, though few  modellers seem to bother with this, is that for European jointed track the sleepers are closer under the track joints whereas, with their closer tie spacing,  N. American railways didn't AFAIK do this and in any case generally used staggered joints. 

 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 27/02/2020 at 01:54, Nova Scotian said:

Has anyone tried modifying code 83 for UK outline? Is it best of both worlds (especially for modern outline), or is it terribly American?

 

Yes, terribly American.

[Philou]

Hi,

 

I know that the OP did ask whether code 100 or 75 or is appropriate for 'modern' layouts and in that respect I've been 100 but on my proposed layout, it's going to be code 75 (both flat-bottom and bull-head) and in electrofrog if I can avoid the Uni-frog ones - personally, I think they look awful compared to plain vanilla electrofrogs or even insulfrogs.

 

I'm responding to a point raised as to whether 50mm or 45mm between track centres. I'm going to 45mm to match that that our club uses are they're into modules and that is their standard spacing for double track. Having said that, when I raised the point on another thread, gordon s of this parish (he of Eastwood Town fame) did alert me to the fact that unless you're going for very large radius curves (7' - or it might have 11' radius) you MUST increase the width between centres to avoid side-swiping by oncoming stock.

 

Here are a couple of photos showing the 45mm spacing with stock on the rails. The second photo shows a MkIII coach entering the mainline from a siding - you will see that there is adequate space. I did also do the same exercise some time ago with some Class 800 stock and despite their length and overhang there were no issues. Please note though - in the photo the points are medium radius and the same clearance may not occur on small radius ones and that under test the Class 800 coaches could not pass each other on a radius of 2' (600mm) despite the spacing being 50mm.

 

 

 

 

I forgot to add that if you decide to go for 45mm centres, you will need to modify the pointwork to match. I attach the photo below so show how I tackled it. I didn't put fishplates at the modified ends as the mainlines were to insulated from each other and once glued and ballasted, there's never been any problems electrically nor with stock running over the gaps:

 

Seems I've reached the 10Mb limit - so I'll post up in another reply.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Philou

[Philou]

Here's the third photo - and what you saw previously is code 100:

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[rob D2]

There’s nothing wrong with code 100 and it’s looks fine ballasted up.

 

However the points that come with it are seriously unrealistic . Therefore I’ve used bullhead75 and some standard 75 on my current project. I’m very happy with it other than frog issues with coarse Hornby 31 wheels  .

 

frog comparison 

 

[dagrizz]

Is code 100 more tolerant of variable back-to-backs than code 75? I know code 75 should be 14.2-14.7 mm. Is code 100 similar or will it tolerate wider btbs, say 15mm? 

 

Graham

[7013]

I have used both in the past, and currently use a mixture on my latest layout. Whilst me preference is for Code 75 it is a lot more fragile and prone to break if not handled carefully. 

[Pacific231G]

On 29/06/2018 at 17:48, E3109 said:

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!

I made myself a simple jig - just some plasticard strips on a hardboard base- to space out the wooden sleepers for sidings on my French H0 layout (main line spacing is 60cms which near enough Peco streamline is in 1:87 scale) It did seem better to leave two sleepers joined on both sides every few to ensure that the track stayed in gauge but the really scientific way to do that would be a jig including the closer sleepers at rail joints to produce proper "panels" of track. 

With mine I spaced the sleepers before laying each section of track and they did to wander between jig and baseboard. There is though a company in France that produces etched brass jigs with the correct sleepr spacings for a number of different railways (they did vary) and I think would produce the length of a couple of panels. It wouldn't be difficult to do something like that. I think the trick would be a "comb" jig that could be used during tracklaying then pulled out, that could probably be cut out of thin ply though brass would be sturdier.

 

I did notice after NR had relaid track on the Greenford Branch a couple of years ago  that they seemed to have used overscale rail

[john new]

On 11/11/2020 at 09:51, dagrizz said:

Is code 100 more tolerant of variable back-to-backs than code 75? I know code 75 should be 14.2-14.7 mm. Is code 100 similar or will it tolerate wider btbs, say 15mm? 

 

Graham

 

The tolerances on code 100 pointwork have changed over time. My current small layout used up three points and some Settrack that I had lurking from train set purchases etc., plus an old PECO Y point from an earlier layout. One of the points has a much finer flange gap on the check rails than the other three and a couple of items which are pending a B-t-B check*/re-wheel have been temporarily put to one side as they derail there but not on the other three.

 

* subsequently found to be a BtB issue, now corrected, but that strengthens the point above; the new one's are finer/less tolerant of errors.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by john new
Updated info added.

[Erixtar1992]

Pre weathering but yes imo its a good choice as its robust

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Late to this one, but thinking having built my own track and used peco it would be code 100 . 
If you can solder track joins together hand built track becomes very strong , code 75 peco is flimsy and had sweary moments trying to cut flexi to length and also fixing rail joiners. 

Appearance is the thing, and if you paint railsides, ballast and particularly if in a siding setting build up the ground to sleeper height it all helps. As many photos on the thread show!
 

[Trainnoob]

I plan on using Standard setrack on my Scenic 00 layout. Not even Streamline, looks ok to me. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Trainnoob

[john new]

It depends on how serious is defined. I have used it on a small shunting plank which is serious for me because it is a trial piece:-

• experimentation with DCC
• experimentation with different coupling types
• refresher and trial for various scenic works
• -ditto- rolling stock mods.

It is not something the “scalefour”/P4 people would ever deem as serious though. I think I know what you are getting at with the question but perhaps serious needs replacing with a different word - convincing perhaps.

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by john new
Added extra words

[Pacific231G]

I used Code 100 for my current layout, which I built some time ago,  but will  probably use Code 75 for the next. For a portable layout there is a balance between roubstness and realism but something I have noticed is that, whille Code 100 does look far too heavy in photographs,  certainly for my rural branch terminus in H0 scale,  that is far less noticeable when actually looking at it.

 

I think that's to do with how our eyes interpret what they see whereas the cold eye of the camera is far less tolerant. I've also seen exhibtion layouts with well ballasted and painted track where I thought I was looking at code 75 but found that it was really code 100.

 

Considering Trainnoob's point about Setrack,  I think its major downside isn't how plain track looks - apart from not having gentle curves and transitions it looks much the same as code 100 Streamline- but how it looks on points which are simply too abrupt.

 

The mistake I regret with my own layout was that, though I used medium radius points for the main pointwork,  I did use a couple of small radius points for a private siding and between the two goods yard sidings. and when stock runs over them the smaller radius is noticeable  The whole layout is only a bit over five feet long so it would have been tempting to use small radius throughout to save length but I found that I really didn''t need to and with medium radius points and a couple of layout design tricks. the track does flow better. I discovered too late that I could have used medium radius throughout without affecting the operational potential of the layout at all while looking much better. 

 

Setrack does of course have a far smaller radius than even a small (nominal two foot) radius streamline   The very small radius of setrack points is also likely to give less smooth operation and running a train of full length coaches   through them will really look toylike.   A friend of mine built a shunting layout using Setrack points but he never got good running from it and has relaid it using Streamline but with one less siding.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Pacific231G

[Dogmatix]

I use Peco Code 75, but have been replacing Peco points with Weinert points. I find them much more realistic, the shortest version being about the size of the Peco 'long' points, and they have continuous tongue rails (like the Oeco bullhead range) which look so much better. Weinert trackwork is compatible with Peco code 75 as it uses the same rails and has the same height. The points sleeper pattern is German, so ideal for German HO layouts. Peco code 75 flat-bottom track is more HO than OO anyway.

[Rob McM]

I am gradually building my 'last' layout and the town terminus is in SMP code 75 with the country terminus in old Formoway Liveway. A Peco adaptor rail will connect the two ends. Both ends of tbe layout are running well with some adjustments to be made in fine tuning. The code 100 Liveway looks  fine and the small number of viewers have commented how real it looks. I feel the cleanliness of the rail heads and the metal frogs and check rails are key to the overall appearance