Jump to content
We will be upgrading the forum software Wednesday morning - the site may be down for a while during backup/install.

coachmann

Is Code 100 still used on "serious" layouts?

Recommended Posts

attachicon.gif6 Platform.jpg

 

 

attachicon.gif8 Viaduct.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

 

Including, by all accounts, the turntable well. :) Regards, John, from Neil. ,(Daltonparva).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Including, by all accounts, the turntable well. :) Regards, John, from Neil. ,(Daltonparva).

:jester:  Quite so!

 

Regards

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an amazing American layout using Kato unitrack, once the scenery was added and the track painted it looked as good as any hand built track model

 

 

Kato Unitack is Code 83. Have had people ask me if the track was Code 75, "no Code 100" - cue puzzled looks, comes down to well painted it is, dark rust rail sides can visually, if not actually, decrease the height

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for a new layout maybe better starting with the new code 75 bullhead range though its still in its infancy. also depends on era.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've quite often not been sure at exhibitions whether well painted and ballasted track is Code 100 or 75 but then I'm not always sure whether a well modelled layout is 00 or EM. Bradfield Gloucester Road had me completely fooled as I assumed it was EM.

My current H0 layout is code 100. IMHO It looks fine to the naked eye but too heavy in photographs. In H0 scale, Streamline is spaced at 60cms which is accurate for main lines but oversleepered for branch lines and sidings. For those I have respaced the sleepers using a simple jig but I'd need to do that for 75 as well. I'm planning to use 75 for my next layout but beginning to wonder whether using 100 for the main running lines and 75 for the sidings might give a better contrast between them.
For portable layouts 100 does have advantage of being rather stronger especially at board joins so it's a question of balance.

Edited by Pacific231G

Share this post


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!

Bearers on pointwork are more closely spaced than sleepers on straight track, so leaving them alone while spacing the sleepers out does not look too bad, especially is you have concrete track with wooden points. Concrete pointwork is a relatively recent development. It is a matter of choice though.

 

Sleepers on modern track are spaced closer than they used to be, but still further apart than on Peco's webbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bearers on pointwork are more closely spaced than sleepers on straight track, so leaving them alone while spacing the sleepers out does not look too bad, especially is you have concrete track with wooden points. Concrete pointwork is a relatively recent development. It is a matter of choice though.

 

Sleepers on modern track are spaced closer than they used to be, but still further apart than on Peco's webbing.

I've just started my OO layout using code 75 concrete sleeper flextrack.  Being in the US, I don't have firsthand knowledge of UK railways.  Do UK mainlines (particularly the Great Western mainline) use wooden sleepered points with concrete sleepered track?  If they do, it certainly gives me more flexibility in track layout while being prototypically correct.  Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote for code 100, its reliable, all my stock runs well on it and I think it is stronger and easier to lay and get good running. I think that is very important because a model railway needs run properly

 

I have tried code 75 but found it difficult to get good running (I think the points may have been distorted slightly during laying) and some of my stock would not run on it.

 

My current exhibition layout uses Peco code 100 and Peco foam underlay, people have commented on how good it looks.

 

I’ve got a stash of new code 100 put away ready for my next layout. I will also be reusing track recovered from my current layout.

 

If others prefer code 75, that fine. Every one to their own preferences.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bearers on pointwork are more closely spaced than sleepers on straight track, so leaving them alone while spacing the sleepers out does not look too bad, especially is you have concrete track with wooden points. Concrete pointwork is a relatively recent development. It is a matter of choice though.

 

Sleepers on modern track are spaced closer than they used to be, but still further apart than on Peco's webbing.

Peco's sleeper spacing for both Code 100 and 75 Streamline corresponds to 600mm in H0 which has been the norm for principal mainlines in France (and presumably elsewhere in Europe) for decades. It would also be correct in H0 for HS1 which does have concrete sleepers at that spacing but most British track uses wider sleeper spacings. I've seen 700mm quoted for straight and gently curved track but the PW experts here will probably know the true figure and I think it used to be more like 2ft 6ins or 750mm. 

 

However, Peco Streamline is to H0 scale so in 4mm/ft scale the spacing is equivalent to about 530mm so oversleepered for any lines.Being correct for H0 scale the sleepers are also rather narrow. for OO. 

For continuous welded rail (CWR) the sleepers would be equally spaced but jointed track has closer sleeper spacings around the joints. Flexible track does of course come with evenly spaced sleepers so In an ideal world - especially for the new code 75 Bullhead track- you would make a jig with the correct sleeper spacing for each panel of jointed track and fit dummy fishplates at each joint.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bearers on pointwork are more closely spaced than sleepers on straight track, so leaving them alone while spacing the sleepers out does not look too bad, especially is you have concrete track with wooden points. Concrete pointwork is a relatively recent development. It is a matter of choice though.

 

Sleepers on modern track are spaced closer than they used to be, but still further apart than on Peco's webbing.

 

thanks for saying that because I wasn't sure until I found myself with some time on my hands waiting for a train recently along the Bham-Wolves line and looked at the track and did think boy those sleepers look very close and was I going mad.  In my youth I don't recall the sleepers being so close and was wondering if it was just my imagination that the gaps have got closer in recent times........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peco's sleeper spacing for both Code 100 and 75 Streamline corresponds to 600mm in H0 which has been the norm for principal mainlines in France (and presumably elsewhere in Europe) for decades. It would also be correct in H0 for HS1 which does have concrete sleepers at that spacing but most British track uses wider sleeper spacings. I've seen 700mm quoted for straight and gently curved track but the PW experts here will probably know the true figure and I think it used to be more like 2ft 6ins or 750mm. 

 

However, Peco Streamline is to H0 scale so in 4mm/ft scale the spacing is equivalent to about 530mm so oversleepered for any lines.Being correct for H0 scale the sleepers are also rather narrow. for OO. 

For continuous welded rail (CWR) the sleepers would be equally spaced but jointed track has closer sleeper spacings around the joints. Flexible track does of course come with evenly spaced sleepers so In an ideal world - especially for the new code 75 Bullhead track- you would make a jig with the correct sleeper spacing for each panel of jointed track and fit dummy fishplates at each joint.  

 

I wonder if PECO were to make scale 60ft lengths (of flexi) whether this would be a great selling addition to the Bullhead range?  Not sure if you can get 2 or 3 exact 60ft scale lengths out of a single yard length but you might end up with lots of end of yard waste lengths hence my suggestion (and thus no or very little waste).  I would buy them for the reason below.

 

Whenever I have watch some videos on YouTube where the layout owners have laid scale 60ft lengths its wonderful hearing a full length passenger express pass over the regularly spaced joints and sounds totally realistic bringing back to life that old clickety clack noise we rarely hear these days in the UK.   With yard lengths you just don't get that rhythmic sound.

 

Were the Hornby/Peco/Bachmann set track "Double straights" manufactured to a scale 60ft I wonder?   They look about the right length but obviously these are Code 100.

Edited by ThaneofFife

Share this post


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

 

Hardly "recently". I was selling Peco Code 75 in my shop more than 20 years ago (25 probably).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just started my OO layout using code 75 concrete sleeper flextrack.  Being in the US, I don't have firsthand knowledge of UK railways.  Do UK mainlines (particularly the Great Western mainline) use wooden sleepered points with concrete sleepered track?  If they do, it certainly gives me more flexibility in track layout while being prototypically correct.  Thanks in advance.

 

Concrete sleepered plain track has been in common use for several decades.

I first remember seeing points with concrete bearers early this century in Paddington's station throat & the main lines like GW, WCML, ECML would have been first to get it.

It is the type of thing I would expect to notice quite quickly either because I am rather sad like that  or I keep my eyes open so I can make my layout more accurate. I like to think it is for the later reason but it is probably a bit of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My railway is in the garden, so the track is out in all weathers. I have found code 100 to be reliable.

I use yard lengths of flexitrack for the straights and  3rd and 4th radius setrack / Hornby for the curves.

Peco points have a shorter life outdoors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Code 100 for me as it is robust, takes older stock without fuss, and looks fine ballasted up. If I were starting again, or do, I would hope to use the new bullhead rail.

 

I also have set track in various places especially in yards.

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly "recently". I was selling Peco Code 75 in my shop more than 20 years ago (25 probably).

I stand corrected. I stopped using code 100 in about 1975 so I was not in the market for it.

 

Cheers,

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grantham, the Streamliner Years uses Code 100 and no one seems to give any adverse comments on it. Red Leader has curved points, slips etc to make prototypical track formations. It is all ballasted using foam underlay on the main running lines and then ballast on the yards, and ballast to make the foam on the main lines more realistic.

 

Baz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I model Irish broad gauge, and use code 100,simply because I have so much of it lying around and it's easy to file down.

 

It also has a visual heft that I don't think 75 has, but mine is a quayside layout, so sleeper spacing isn't an issue.

 

I also like the concept of using pizza cutter wheels and reliable running, whilst still being to scale. The numbers of folk that think this is a sensible modelling decision can be counted on a single digit...

 

Rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Code 100 rail, hand spiked to wood ties...

 

 

post-704-0-92675600-1530383458_thumb.jpg

 

No one mentioned which Scale :D :jester:

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's better for exhibition layouts rather than those that never leave home as unless you tell viewers, they will only be able to guess. Furthermore, at a normal viewing distance, no one will notice it. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would need a magnifying glass etc. to see the difference half a metre away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This telephoto shot to compress the curve through the station was a test. It is Peco code 100 laid on top of Peco bullhead to a revised formation. The Code 100 rail is far more apparent because of its unpainted flat bottom section. Two-thirds of my layout uses Code 100 with some of it outside in the garden.....

 

post-6680-0-12046600-1530386390_thumb.jpg

Edited by coachmann
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I bought 70 odd points that were virtually brand new for my previous layout, I carried on buying them for my current layout which has about 130 points.

I was going to use bullhead for a scenic section but it would look unacceptably wrong where it would meet the code 100

But has been stated throughout this thread if ballasted,painted and weathered it looks reasonable especially if the layout is not for exhibition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have intimated it will depend on the definition of serious, but my 1990s SNCF layout was built on code 100 - nothing finer when I started that - and my current UK pre-grouping project is also based on code 100.  If I had had the freedom I would have chosen code 75 for this and more latterly bullhead, but now retired, I am constrained and I had a lot of points and track from previous projects and job-lot buys and I cannot afford to just dump it.  In any case a lot of it will be set into stone setts and the rest, properly weathered, will not obviously show its ancient pedigree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My railway is in the garden, so the track is out in all weathers. I have found code 100 to be reliable.

I use yard lengths of flexitrack for the straights and 3rd and 4th radius setrack / Hornby for the curves.

Peco points have a shorter life outdoors.

Indeed. Although I've committed to code 75 for my layout, I'd definitely use code 100 if there was an outside section, purely for its durability and presumably, the fact that it's much more forgiving regarding wheel dimensions thus fewer derailments.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.