Jump to content

coachmann

Is Code 100 still used on "serious" layouts?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Pacific231G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Pacific231G
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

P1010418.JPG.c58afeb5851e228d570447f73c3b4ba5.JPG

 

 

P1010416.JPG.c1a51d45571ac471ec62c9203047b8b1.JPG

 

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 by Philou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

P1000753.JPG.491f19b17d042b1e377226001a197284.JPG

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used code 75 for the scenic part of my layout & code 100 for storage loops .& one lesson I did learn use fine ballast 

95EEB840-947C-4A96-A14B-FE0D9C1297B2.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

 

33426F51-CB24-44D9-9FFC-2D019E51DBD7.jpeg

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.