Jump to content

coachmann

Is Code 100 still used on "serious" layouts?

Recommended Posts

I didn't have any electrical pick up problems with Insulfrog slips while on DC, but they did require careful pinning down to ensure the wheels that could pick up current were actually on the rails while others were on plastic dead spots. With DCC, I would not anticipate any problems with stay-alives covering the dead issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With DCC, I would not anticipate any problems with stay-alives covering the dead issues.

Some of my locos are too small for stay-alives to fit, unfortunately.

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

 

Sorry - missed this first time round. As has been already mentioned, we make use of Code 100. I think we're 'serious', in the way the OP mentions?

 

post-16151-0-88493200-1533906391_thumb.jpg

 

post-16151-0-41068800-1533906735_thumb.jpg

 

post-16151-0-99802300-1533906807.jpg

 

To emphasise a couple of points (ha!) made by others. Code 100 is more resilient to the rough and tumble of the exhibition circuit. Painting the rail sides makes a huge difference in terms of toning down and blending in the larger size of the rail. And laying to 45mm track centres helps as well (although that applies equally to Code 75).

 

post-16151-0-54199000-1533907625_thumb.jpg

All that having been said, Shap is laid on Code 75 (concrete)! To some extent a bit of a try out (there's nowhere near as much track). Only comment for now is that it takes more care to lay even and true as the smaller section makes it more susceptible to knocks, kinks, undulations, etc. It's only been to one show so far so we'll have to see how it fares in terms of durability.

 

(All photos courtesy of Tony Wright)

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yours is a serious layout in my book LNER 4479. Your comments about Shap, which uses Code 75, interest me, and I second that it takes more care to lay even and true as the smaller section makes it more susceptible to knocks, kinks, undulations. Peco bullhead demands even more care and is easily damaged just be putting two sections together with Code 75 rail joiners.

 

I am not sure at this stage whether Code 100 will be used in the my layout.  It has certainly delivered ultra-smooth running and it's rigidity is apparent when two pieces of track seem to lock together rather than clip together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peco bullhead demands even more care and is easily damaged just be putting two sections together with Code 75 rail joiners.

I find that inserting a small screwdriver into the code 75 rail joiner and twisting gently three or four times along the length of the joiner makes them easier to fit on the bullhead rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently watched a Youtube video where a chap was unpacking a box of the new Peco Code 75 bullhead track.

 

1 length of track had a lot of the sleepers detached from the rails and another length of track was so badly bent as to render it virtually unusable. He was most dissapointed to say the least!

 

 I'll be sticking with  Peco Code 100 for my next layout. It's bulletproof!

 

 

post-7898-0-12552600-1533917973_thumb.jpg

Edited by Alcanman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that inserting a small screwdriver into the code 75 rail joiner and twisting gently three or four times along the length of the joiner makes them easier to fit on the bullhead rail.

I picked that up earlier Budgie and adopted it. It works out well. Thanks.

Edited by coachmann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the party as usual, but if I could just throw my twopenn'th in here I've just finished laying a garage-sized layout in all code 75 and really wished I'd used 100!  I lost so many lengths of flexi due to the rails pulling out of the sleepers and not being able to re-thread them back in again, and the slighest baseboard undulations have proved problematic and it has taken weeks of fiddling about packing and re-laying points particularly due to poor running/derailments etc... It also seems the case that even the newest locos (with properly gapped wheels) sometimes have an issue with the catch rails on 75 points, especially the curved ones (of which I laid 8) and often the front wheels jump when crossing them as the flanges catch the inside rail.  Oddly enough, the best runner on the layout is an old Bachmann/Mainline-reissue Class 46 which purrs over everything unhindered whilst the front pony wheels on a new Fairburn jump every time...

 

Ah well, you live and learn...!

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some agreement with the above. Code 100 really does give meaning to the words 'Permanent Way'. I have enjoyed the smoothest passage ever through pointwork ever since relaying Carrog with Code 100, but unfortunately for me, I used Peco bullhead first and I cannot get away from the fact that bullhead looks so much better.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough and reliable, but as Coach says perhaps not quite realistic

I have some agreement with the above. Code 100 really does give meaning to the words 'Permanent Way'. I have enjoyed the smoothest passage ever through pointwork ever since relaying Carrog with Code 100, but unfortunately for me, I used Peco bullhead first and I cannot get away from the fact that bullhead looks so much better.

 

Just a reminder, Code 100 pinned directy to MDF and ballasted at a later date.

 

http://youtu.be/EOhMFH9qU30

 

Not a bad send up for Heljan's 47xx?

 

Cheers Ray

Edited by Silver Sidelines
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the video. That is some large layout there Ray. Good track laying in whatever code is the key in the end. The Heljan 47XX is a heavy beast for a plastic RTR model and it was scary listening to it bump over some of my more dodgy pointwork before the Code 100 relay. You have got plenty of space there for long trains. It would have been interesting to see them negotiating the curved part of those Peco slips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Coach

 

I had forgotten about the 'single slip'!

 

It would have been interesting to see them negotiating the curved part of those Peco slips.

The layout was built with a 'dead frog / Insulfrog' diamond crossing. Some engines would always hesitate or stall and I alighted on the idea of swapping in a single slip which has less plastic and I think offers better electrical continuity.

 

There is a Post all about it back here.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/880/entry-7487-diamond-crossing-or-single-slip/

 

Although the Slip is fully wired up it is not used as the effective radius must be something approaching 24 inch and not suitable for close coupled coaches - never mind eight coupled engines!

 

http://youtu.be/cNp-OMFT0n8

 

Cheers Ray

Edited by Silver Sidelines
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the trouble Ray. The sharp LH or RH turn on 2' radius slips has been an irritant with me for years and it looks like a bullhead slip could be the same radius. However, we are where we are and Peco turnouts are mighty convenient for me seeing as 'electrics' is one of those parts of this hobby that I avoid nowadays. Two Insulfrog single slips will be on Ruabon. Great minds think alike, as I used a single slip in place of a diamond at the double junction at Greenfield Junction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Code 100 only for storage sidings now. Went with Marcways recently building my own turnouts.

 

I’m starting a new exhibition layout shortly and will probably go down the Peco Bullhead route. Looks so much better. I will use code 100 for the sidings as you can pick up good second hand points for a few quid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting....

 

I've been steadily amassing track & point stock for my intended layout. The layout calls for 3-4 single slips. All in code 75 

 

No tender locomotives, just 56xx's & panniers, oh, and a 42xx or two. All coal wagons, plus 2 B-sets.

 

Sticky wicket?

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2018 at 09:31, Grafarman said:

Late to the party as usual, but if I could just throw my twopenn'th in here I've just finished laying a garage-sized layout in all code 75 and really wished I'd used 100!  I lost so many lengths of flexi due to the rails pulling out of the sleepers and not being able to re-thread them back in again, and the slighest baseboard undulations have proved problematic and it has taken weeks of fiddling about packing and re-laying points particularly due to poor running/derailments etc... It also seems the case that even the newest locos (with properly gapped wheels) sometimes have an issue with the catch rails on 75 points, especially the curved ones (of which I laid 8) and often the front wheels jump when crossing them as the flanges catch the inside rail.  Oddly enough, the best runner on the layout is an old Bachmann/Mainline-reissue Class 46 which purrs over everything unhindered whilst the front pony wheels on a new Fairburn jump every time...

 

Ah well, you live and learn...!

 

David

Does anyone know of a list anywhere giving what stock makes will, and more importantly won’t, run through code 75. I currently use 100 but tempted to swap for the next extension board. I have a fair bit of old stock, some posters have said they are ok, others that they don’t.

Edited by john new

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that you'll get a definitive list since the issue is primarily with the flange depth and there are two unknowns here.  Firstly it's possible that earlier batches of a certain locomotive may have had a slightly deeper flange than the latest batch, so someone with an early model may post that they have issues, whereas someone with a later model will report that it is fine.  The other issue is manufacturing tolerances, so even although most models from a particular batch may be okay, there is always the possibility that the range of flange depths which are nominally all the same will vary such that some may touch the chairs where others don't.  However, since Code 75 rail has been around for the last 25 years or so, I'd assume that most models old since then should be okay.

 

I think the only way to answer your question is to buy yourself some Code 75 track and test run the stock that you intend to use before committing to a decision.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

I doubt that you'll get a definitive list since the issue is primarily with the flange depth and there are two unknowns here.  Firstly it's possible that earlier batches of a certain locomotive may have had a slightly deeper flange than the latest batch, so someone with an early model may post that they have issues, whereas someone with a later model will report that it is fine.  The other issue is manufacturing tolerances, so even although most models from a particular batch may be okay, there is always the possibility that the range of flange depths which are nominally all the same will vary such that some may touch the chairs where others don't.  However, since Code 75 rail has been around for the last 25 years or so, I'd assume that most models old since then should be okay.

 

I think the only way to answer your question is to buy yourself some Code 75 track and test run the stock that you intend to use before committing to a decision.

As stated the test with a point and a bit of track is the obvious way forward, but I have a lot of stock to check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only things that I had problems with was some earlier Lima from the late 1970s and early 1980s. Mostly coaches and wagons with large flanges hitting the chairs.

 

Easily cured with replacement wheels. The ones from Peters Spares were a drop in fit and if you look here you can see the problem with the flange size.

 

https://www.petersspares.com/peters-spares-ps34-lima-replacement-12mm-wagon-coach-wheels-x1-pair.ir

 

Otherwise no problems even with a few older models from the mid 1960s.

 

 

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want compatibility with older stock use Code 100. If you are only running locomotives produced in the last 10-15 years then it should be fine to use code 75 with them. Older Bachmann releases have got larger flanges than their more modern releases. Models such as the LMS Crab, N Class, 56xx, WD 2-8-0 suffer from this just to name a few. 

 

Its not just a case of varying between manufacturers or even date produced. It can even be between different models that the same manufacturer produced, my 1970s Hornby HST Power Cars will go round the Code 75 club layout but the Hornby Mk3 coaches that came with it won't. 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder if the excessive end throw of passenger coaching stock is reduced (improved) with 00 when you reduce the "6ft" centre to centre  between running lines down to 45mm from 50mm so that a train looks much more realistic negotiating a typical crossover ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThaneofFife said:

i wonder if the excessive end throw of passenger coaching stock is reduced (improved) with 00 when you reduce the "6ft" centre to centre  between running lines down to 45mm from 50mm so that a train looks much more realistic negotiating a typical crossover ? 

 

I agree that reducing the 'six foot' down to a scale centre to centre distance would reduce the end throw slightly, and therefore improve aesthetics, but the best way to reduce the 'excessive' end throw would be to use scale length point-work, with scale radii in the closure rails.  Peco would have to introduce an XXXL radius point, which they couldn't do without switching to prototype geometry and selling us something like a D12, or E18 rather than the B6 sized points we insist on using.

 

Happy New Year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

I agree that reducing the 'six foot' down to a scale centre to centre distance would reduce the end throw slightly, and therefore improve aesthetics, but the best way to reduce the 'excessive' end throw would be to use scale length point-work, with scale radii in the closure rails.  Peco would have to introduce an XXXL radius point, which they couldn't do without switching to prototype geometry and selling us something like a D12, or E18 rather than the B6 sized points we insist on using.

 

Happy New Year

 

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

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.